Tag Archives: YourChoice

Baywatch

[3 stars]

Yes, I know, even I’m embarrassed to admit I made time to watch this. Why did I? Curiosity, mainly. I never watched the show and never wanted to. I guess I was looking for a bit of harmless distraction in the midst of trying times and a rather challenging week.

There is certainly no complexity in this story to force you to think. There are some pretty bodies, some light action, some gnashing of teeth, and a lot of broad humor. The humor is probably where it falls apart the most for me. It is all so cheap and obvious, aimed at teenage boys when their audience was older. It also made Dwayne Johnson’s (Moana) and Zac Efron’s (The Paperboy) characters come across as just, well, dumb. But, then again, I wasn’t looking for the next Seventh Seal when I put this on, so I shouldn’t complain; but neither was I looking for The Three Stooges.

Though this tale is very much dominated by the men, there are several women who are more than just pretty faces, though not much leverage in the plot. Ilfenesh Hadera (Chi-Raq), Alexandra Daddario (San Andreas), Kelly Rohrbach, and Priyanka Chopra (Quantico) are all strong and with brains and bods. It would have been better if they’d also been instrumental in the story rather than just connective tissue, but it really isn’t that kind of movie.

I’m not sure this trifle is even something I can recommend as a distraction you should seek out. If it came on unbidden in the schedule, it is probably not something you should run from, but even fans of the show were disappointed by the lack of actual Baywatch-ness to the flick. They had their nods (a couple actually amusing) but generally didn’t manage to be satire nor homage…it simply co-opted the title for marketing and tried to run with it. The result isn’t unwatchable, it is just not recommendable. So this is entirely up to you on whether to make a beach party of it or to choose a different distraction.

Baywatch

The Mummy (2017)

[2.5 stars]

This movie was clearly in trouble from the first few moments with the silly voice-over and set up. It then went on to try and recapture the 1999  sense of humor, but misses completely. The relationship between Tom Cruise (Eyes Wide Shut) and Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur) isn’t compelling and Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) doesn’t come across as either a soldier nor suitable side-kick for Cruise.

The original 1932 Mummy is kitschy, but also a wonderful classic. The 1999 remake is filled with action and humor. There have been many spin-off and sequels based on this Universal monster over the 80+ years of its life on screen. So if you’re going to do it yet again, especially to launch a new monster-universe franchise, you’d think the studio would spend some time on the script. I’m not sure how they went wrong, but having six writers involved couldn’t have helped no matter how successful most of them have been on their own in the past.

I have to admit, the ideas and intent were interesting, at least on aspects of the mummy part. But the script and story are simply put: crap. And I won’t even touch the Russel Crowe (The Nice Guys) Dr. Jekyll role, who apparently would be a bridging component between the planned movies. But let’s talk about some of the issues (and only some and a tad spoilery, but nothing that really matters since you’ll know it all going in):

  • Why, when you have an ultimate evil well imprisoned would you have a way to break them out of that prison already set up and ready to go
  • Crash victims are already in the morgue for identification while wreckage is still being discovered and burning
  • Consecrated warriors are taken over by “evil” without a struggle or even a nod to the power of the faith the movie tries to make into reality
  • And let’s talk about the Westernization of Egyptian myth. Set is neither evil nor the devil. He is the ruler of wild lands, the deserts, foreign lands, and the storm, and protects the Boat of Ra during the night journey when it is threatened by the serpent monster of chaos, Apep. (Thanks, Matt, for the detail and correction.) And he isn’t a monster, as stated in the script. To paraphrase one of the great moments in Buffy: he’s a god.
  • Then there was all the distracting nods to other horror films like An American Werewolf in London and Night of the Living Dead (pick a version)
  • The decisions around how to solve the main problem of the tale are a stretch at best and stupidly risky as worst. For the love of a god, just break the offending object of power and be done with it!

But it wasn’t just script choices, and there were so many more, the direction of the characters was often weak and ill conceived.  Annabelle Wallis is completely non-credible as an archaeologist. Sure, she has her secrets and such, but her actions and reactions are all in service to the story to come rather than realistic reactions in the moment of the action. That is on the director Kurtzman more than her, but it was very frustrating and weakened her character.

Generally, this movie was a weak mess that has some entertainment value, but a whole lot of meh (to quote some friends). I leave it entirely up to you if you want to watch it. I won’t be putting it on again, if that is any help in your decision making.

The Mummy

 

 

Jack

[2.5 stars]

This isn’t a great film. It has odd pacing, is a clumsy adaptation, and doesn’t earn its ending. It is worth seeing, but that has more to do with the cast than the execution.

This is one of Anton Yelchin’s (Rememory) earliest roles. He leads this story about family and divorce from a young teen’s point of view. Even at 14 he could drive a film and deliver a tightly contained character with storms of emotion going on under the skin. His trademark approach of understated presentation is in full bloom, and he holds his own with much more experienced co-stars Ron Silver and Stockard Channing.

There is a spooky quality to this tale as well, given Yelchin’s untimely death. Silver, as well, is no longer around. The Jack character speaks a great deal about life and growing up. You cannot help but bounce that off the reality of the actors’ deaths.

As to the story itself, it is timely, but nothing you haven’t seen before. Though it was a Showtime flick, it doesn’t really have that TV movie neutering, which is a plus. That is likely thanks to director Lee Rose, who has extensive credits in TV, but on the edgier side of that platform. The real weakness is Holmes self adaptation of her own book and not wanting to let go of the format to get to the message.

Save this for an open slot in your schedule when you want to be a bit more complete in your Yelchin trivia (or Silver or Channing, for that matter). Expect to be engaged, but I don’t expect it will end up on anyone’s top film list. Also, be warned that at least my copy of the disc started to fall out of audio sync starting about half way through. It wasn’t unwatchable, but it did get distracting and no amount of stop and start seemed to fully rectify the issue.

Jack

Oh, Hello

[2 stars]

When you are the target audience for a bit of satirical comedy and it leaves you nonplussed, it isn’t a great sign.  Oh, Hello is an ironic poison pen letter to New York theatre. Or, if not poison pen, certainly with more than a little bit of ire and frustration. And I do say this as their target audience, based on the subject matter (NYC living and the theater/entertainment world).

Honestly, I just found it mean-spirited and relatively uninspired in its message. With the exception of a couple cameos, it wasn’t even all that funny. Nick Kroll (Sing) and John Mulaney (Documentary Now!) are only marginally decent at playing older men, not that they are intended to be realistic. But the script is just, well, boring. It takes a half hour for the setup to complete so that the jokes can start paying off. But they don’t continue. There are side stories and sophomoric silliness and absurdities and a ton of inside jokes that would leave most people scratching their heads.

I’m sure there is an audience for this; it isn’t entirely unenjoyable. As part of my Netflix subscription it was favorably priced for its value, but I am glad I didn’t spend Broadway prices (or anything in addition) to see it.

The Ticket

[3 stars]

Here’s a combo description for you… imagine 99 Homes meets the Talking Heads “Once in a Lifetime.” The odd/nice(?) thing about this film is that you can take it at face value or as pure metaphor. Either way it mostly works.

Director and co-writer Ido Fulk provides a number of great moments to work with, particularly the beginning and ending. They are sharp and feel honest. But the middle, especially some of the transitions for Dan Stevens (Colossal), feels forced into the narrative that had been created. Stevens plays with what he has just fine, but there are missing moments and odd leaps that make the character journey feel less that true.

For instance, one aspect that plays very believably is his individual relationships and scenes with Kerry Bishé (Grand Piano) and Malin Akerman (The Final Girls). And they, likewise, slam it home well. However, the pathway to and from each is more than a little muddled in the script. You can see how it might have gotten there, but you don’t get to experience the movement by degrees.

Likewise, his friendship with Oliver Platt (The 9th Life of Louis Drax) seems to be a highlights reel rather than interaction. In this case, it is less distracting or concerning as the steps are clearer, but it still left me wanting.

Ultimately, I think The Ticket is better as metaphor than reality. Using blindness as a literalization of impediment to personal growth and recognition is clever and effective. Used as reality, it is somewhat insulting to those who make their lives work well without sight. I’ve known many. Lack of sight is a challenge, to be sure, but it doesn’t have to limit your success. If it was meant as a true-ish story, I think I would have to rate it much lower than I have, which is already on a knife-edge due to the full shape of the tale.

So, do you want to spend time in the world of The Ticket? On the upside, there are some good performances and some interesting philosophical points to consider. On the down side, it is a compressed story that needed a bit more room to breathe.

The Ticket

Cleverman (Series 1 & 2)

[3 stars]

If it weren’t for the politics and events of the last 8 months or so, Cleverman would just be a middling science fiction series discussing the endemic social schisms that exist today. Despite some good, as well as internationally recognizable talent such as Iain Glenn (Game of Thrones) and Frances O’Conner (The Missing), it is often ham-handed and rushed.

The first series was intriguing on a purely cultural level for me. Out of Australia, this show uses the aboriginal myths and template to posit a recently discovered race of long-lived, powerful hominids that have co-existed with humans. All manner of racism and fear ensue (and a lot of really, really bad wigs). But by crossing the idea with aspects of The Dreaming, other metaphysical concepts, and some truly screwed up families, you got enough to keep you watching the journey of the main character played by Hunter Page-Lochard (The Sapphires). It built to an inevitable crescendo of violence that ensured you’d watch the next series.

Series 2 improved a little in its subtleties and information. We get to understand more…and cringe more. The family drama continues to compound and the relatively unknown Rob Collins tries to bring credibility to a ridiculously overwrought story-line. With only six episodes again this series, the writers were forced to rush their ending and left us hanging in rather frustrating, if again intriguing, ways. I (think) I know how they write themselves out of the final moments, but I’ve no clue where they are going to take it from there that won’t make the series more Planet of the Apes than, say, Gattaca.

Generally, Cleverman isn’t a great series, but it is probably different enough, and short enough in episodes, to keep you hooked. Given the improvements from the first series to the second, I’m hoping that a final or continuing series will continue to build on lessons learned.

Cleverman

It Comes at Night

[2 stars]

You have to give this movie credit for being what it wants to be: an intensely personal look at the dissolution of society after an unidentified catastrophe. Basically it asks, “What price, survival?” We’ve seen a lot of these in recent times (a subject I won’t go into here) but this is one of the weaker executions. Both Girl With All the Gifts and Into the Forest manage something more compelling and with better commentary.

The issue, however, isn’t with the acting. Joel Edgerton (Loving), Carmen Ejogo (Alien: Covenant), Kelvin Harrison Jr. (Enders Game) give life to the main family. Christopher Abbot (Martha Marcy May Marlene) and Riley Keough (The Discovery), provide another perspective and a bit of suspense and tension. Sadly, however, no answers. In all cases the families feel real, given the situation.

The weakness in this tale is the story itself. Trey Edward Shults follows up his critical hit Krisha with this latest foray into familial horror. Told primarily from the point of view of a teenage boy, we get a lot of suggestion, but little real resolution. And the ending is both obvious and pointless, and a tad out of left field. Initially the story has many elements of reality and dreams as Travis gets more and more sleep-deprived, whether due to sickness or stress we wait and see. The construct is an interesting aspect to the family’s predicament. However, it never pays off and we’re left wondering about far too much as the path that got us to the end just sort of peters out.

As a bit of tension and nihilist pondering, It Comes at Night succeeds. The film making itself is quite good. As a movie, however, at least for me, it felt unfulfilled and pointless.

It Comes at Night

Mindgamers

[2 stars]

I have to admit, thanks to the inclusion of Sam Neill (Hunt for the Wilderpeople) in this cast, not to mention the design of Enoch, I couldn’t get Event Horizon out of my head. There are aspects that make the two somewhat brethren, though they are movies with very very different intentions. Mindgamers is much more sf/horror while Event Horizon was really just horror with sf trappings.

Admittedly, though Neill is at the core of this story, the movie is driven by Tom Payne (Luck) and his group of hapless geeks. That group is completed with some competent and committed actors: Dominique Tipper (Girl with All the Gifts), Antonia Campbell-Hughes (Split), Oliver Stark (Into the Badlands), Turlough Convery (Poldark). It isn’t really entirely their fault that the script is oblique and over-written.

Working against or with them (depending on the scene and your interpretation) is Melia Kreiling (Last Tycoon). She brings a cool creepiness to her character, though very little depth. 

Director Andrew Goth and writer Joanne Reay  are frequent collaborators. You can sense the simpatico from script and vision to screen. The trip, for there is no better way to describe the result, is fluid and done without apology and with little explanation. It is clear that reality is something that isn’t defined crisply from very near the beginning. I actually applaud the guts of that approach, but the result wasn’t particularly great. A Cure for Wellness, for all its faults, tackled the psychological part of that much more effectively.

Basically, no, I can’t recommend this flick. Despite its amusing launch in theaters (a la William Castle) offering a mind-linked experience, the story just isn’t there for all the visual and choreography cleverness. Their locations also became a distraction for me as they were more interesting than the movie and and some were recognizable from other films (in particular, Spectral). So, my recommendation is either watch this highly altered or simply pass it by. Someone will do the theme better justice at some point.

MindGamers

Ghost in the Shell (2017)

[3 stars]

This is a tough one. Any time you tackle a classic you risk annoying people or messing it up. Ghost in the Shell has close to biblical import in the manga and anime worlds, so it was even more fraught with peril.

But let’s tackle the story problem first. How do you make an exciting story about an emotionless cyborg looking for its humanity? It ain’t easy. We have lots of eye candy, enough to rival Blade Runner or even the more recent Valerian. The world is rich, incredibly designed to the smallest detail, and evocative of the roots of the material.

Scarlett Johansson (The Jungle Book) is solid as the female mercenary lead. Believable in action and cold in execution. But it is not much different from her turns in Lucy, Under the Skin, Her, or even as Black Widow, in many ways. It is a solid go-to for her and she shades each differently, but it is all getting a bit the same. Sometimes, that can be enough, but this is a complex tale of identity and horror…and the script leaves both her and us hanging on resolving and dealing with those aspects.

To get around her character’s lack of emtion, we do have some of her team to reflect on. Pilou Asbæk (Great Wall, or even better as Euron Greyjoy in Game of Thrones) in particular and Juliet Binoche (Clouds of Sils Maria) as well. Both have connections to Major that provide emotion by proxy.

But then there is the white washing problem. Why are all the cyborgs Western? And, while that could be a choice in order to distance the new entity from its past, it is something that could have been covered by commenting on it. We know she has a Japanese mother and was at least half-Japanese herself from this film. I’m not trying to be overly PC, but it can be as jarring as watching a cast of Englishmen playing Frenchmen without even bothering to try and change the accent (let alone language). Culture and race (even if only from a morphological point of view) are even more core and affect credibility.

Given this was director Rupert Sanders’s (Snow White and the Huntsman) second feature, it was at an impressive scale. But, ultimately, like Valerian, this is mostly an empty ride. Even the climax ends up missing the mark as the relationships aren’t really established to make it believable nor is the key phrase used to set it off quite how its been set up through the script (though I liked the idea). Truly a shame as it was almost a powerful finale.

Do you want to spend some time in this universe? If you want the eye candy (both CGI and the skin-tight clad Ms. Johansson), sure. It isn’t a brilliant script. It isn’t mindblowing acting. It isn’t more than a middling adaptation. Sometimes, that can all be enough for a bit of distraction. Can’t it?

Ghost in the Shell

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

[3 stars] Reimagining classic tales and myths is not something new. It has been going on for as long as they’ve existed. As a writer myself, it would be hypocritical of me to say it is something that shouldn’t be done. Writers steal and riff all the time. Sometimes the effort gives you new insight or ideas about a tale, like when you tell it from a different point of view or change one aspect of a main character to help explain aspects of the story.

Director and co-writer Guy Ritchie managed to pull this approach off with his Sherlock Holmes series. Holmes retained, just barely, enough recognizable aspects of the stories to be an entertaining riff, though you had to let go of the original. And Ritchie isn’t alone in playing with Holmes. Sherlock and Mr. Holmes are just two other recent riffs that worked (better in my opinion) as well.

But you have to have a reason to make these changes. Just screwing with a well-known story because you can or because you want to use the title for marketing achieves nothing. In fact, it works against you as people walk in with expectations and then have their heads whipped around. That approach risks never getting them back on board for the ride.

King Arthur has been dog-piled on by critics far and wide. It is overblown, unfocused, only mildly entertaining, and it shreds a known classic to no great advantage. If we’ve learned anything from Game of Thrones, you can create a magical, pre-industrial story that will sell if you write it well enough. The group of writers on Arthur didn’t.

There are some aspects of this movie that aren’t bad. The sequence showing Arthur growing up is classic Ritchie, as is some of his early, bantering encounters. They also didn’t turn this into a romance in any way, and had a wonderful idea on the genesis of the sword in the stone. And Ritchie did pull together a talented cast to try and sell the melange he put together.

Charlie Hunnam (Crimson Peak) pulls off the intelligent barbarian pretty well, and he understands humor. And Astrid Bergès-Frisbey (I Origins) provides a nice analog to Merlin, though she remains rather on the outside of things in a way that diminishes her in the overall story. Jude Law (Genius) tries to enrich his Vortigern, but it just isn’t in the script. There are a slew of supporting characters. Most effective in that crew: Neil Maskell (Utopia), Kingsley Ben-Adir (Vera), Bleu Landau (Eastenders), and Aidan Gillen (The Lovers).

But let’s be clear, this movie is only marginally passable, quite long, and more sound and fury than substance. It had been intended as the launch to a massive franchise, but ended as one of the biggest flops on record. The lesson here isn’t “don’t screw with a classic” but rather “if you’re going to screw with a classic, write a damned good script.” So for a popcorn night with some libation, this will pass muster. However, go in with low expectations and a willingness to forget anything you may have known about King Arthur.

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword