Frankly, there is not a lot to say about the film. It has no subtext, the acting is in service of the action not really the characters, and the action is from Paul W,S. Anderson, who has been making this kind of movie for a long time so he knows his way around this stuff. The only hook I have for potential fans is my own nostalgia for movies like this and I will get into that in a moment.
The story does not spend anytime explaining what is going on. It drops us into a mission, transports us to another dimension and starts throwing monsters at us pretty damn quickly. No one will be surprised that Milla Jovovitch's character, Captain Artemis, ends up as the one real survivor of the opening half hour. The other characters are so thinly drawn that you can see it coming immediately. What does work in the movie is a long sequence where she combats and collaborates with a true resident of this world, Tony Jaa, a martial arts movie star that you will recognize if you like those kinds of films. Their initial interactions are full of hand to hand combat and the sort of action work you would find in Anderson's other movies.
The process by which the two become allied is reminiscent of a number of other films, the first that come to mind is "Enemy Mine". My nostalgia radar was going off very early, thinking of one of my favorite childhood movies "The Mysterious Island" from 1961, but also some cheesy 1970s films starring Doug McClure, "At the Earth's Core" and "The Land That Time Forgot". Basically a group of outsiders gets plopped down in an alien environment and gets attacked by monsters. Edgar Rice Burroughs should have received a story credit on this movie.
"Monster Hunter" is a brisk time waster that will go down well on a rainy Saturday afternoon, but it is not especially good. The design of the monsters is fun and a little confounding. Since this review is mostly name dropping of other films, I will throw in "Starship Troopers". When you see the night crawling nest of creatures after Artemis and the Hunter, you will understand why that reference is relevant. I'm not sure why a sailing ship crossing a desert works visually, but in the opening sequence it does, inspite of the fact that it is confusing. When you notice that the Captain of the ship is played by Ron Pearlman, yo will not at all be surprised that those images come back later in the film.
For me, the main reason to see this is that it is playing exclusively in theaters now, and dammit, I am on a personal crusade to try and sustain movie theaters until things get back to something more normal. If we don't try, they will all give up and we will be left alone in our living rooms. That is a monster that I am hunting.
So we finally get to see the movie that most fans of Comic Book movies have anticipated for the year. It was pushed back from it's original release, and then pushed back again to Christmas, and finally, it is released on streaming at the same time it shows up in theaters. It turns out that it is mostly a lump of coal rather than the diamond in the crown. WW84 will probably turn out to be the biggest critical disappointment of the year. After so may expectations created by the first stand alone Wonder Woman, this will feel like a huge letdown.
The failures of this movie are not in production values, performance or any technical field, they are mistakes in the storytelling. As I've said a dozen times or more over the years, I am not a comics guy. So I can't tell you how this story follows the path of the character in the comic books. I understand that this was a storyline in 1984, so that must account for the reason the film has been situated in the past, and that seems to be the only reason it is. That and the fact that 1984 will give the film makers a chance to lampoon the fashions of the era, basically playing off the same trick as "The Wedding Singer". Otherwise, there is no reason that the movie could not be set in a contemporary framework.
As usual, I avoid spoilers as much as possible, but the first thing I want to talk about is the opening of the film, and I myself see no real connection to the rest of the story, so it will not ruin anything in that regard. The opening is a flashback sequence to Diana as a young girl on Themyscira and basically it is a long sequence from an episode of "Wipeout" or "Ninja Warrior". At the conclusion, we get a few words from her mother Connie Nielsen and her Aunt Robin Wright, and then they are gone and the land of Diana's origin is never revisited during the movie. That is understandable given the story we had before and the Justice League follow up. However, if you watch the trailer, it suggests a cross cutting story between two past timelines and that makes this a disappointment. The bigger issue on the other hand is that the sequence introduces a plotline about the "truth", but it is forced onto the events in the sequence and there is not really a follow up in the main part of the film. It probably would have been better to stick with the idea that there are no shortcuts to real happiness or success. At least that would have fit in with the story that develops in the 1984 setting.
The main plot is attempting to do what other superhero films sometimes try and usually fail at accomplishing, creating two antagonists for the hero to deal with. Barbara Minerva is a potentially great character who would match up well with Diana Prince in both of their personas. Kristen Wiig plays Barbara as mousey and lacking the confidence of Diana Prince in spite of her clear accomplishments. When she develops the "Cheetah", she is a match for Wonder Woman but that process get interrupted by and pushed aside by the second villain. Pedro Pascal plays Max Lord, a TV investment guru who has designs on an ancient object that might grant him his wish to save his crumbling empire. His efforts are the thing that lead to the usual cataclysmic outcomes that these stories always seem to demand, even when they are not needed. We spend so much time following a chain of events in his plot that we lose the promising story of the two powerful women heading into a conflict. That relationship becomes a side issue to the third act end of the world scenario and CGI-fest that has undermined most of the DCEU films so far. Max Lord is basically Jafar from "Aladdin" at the end of the film.
In an attempt to avoid repeating themselves and having one of the ancient gods appear as the opponent [Ares in Wonder Woman, Steppenwolf in Justice League], we get an object that is the equivalent of a magic lamp. Then the mystical object is anthropomorphized as a human character. There is a repeated quality to the film that does not escape notice by screenwriting trickery. The fish out of water device that was used amusingly to introduce Diana to WWI era Great Britain, is repeated almost note for note with a fashion show for Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) when he appears in 1984. The mocking of men's clothing styles from that time period is fun, but it is merely a side note. Also, the sacrifice of one of the characters is a dead on repeat of the original story, it is not disguised at all.
There are a number of inconsistencies in the world the screen writing team and director have come up with. The way in which wishes are granted is arbitrary, suggesting at one point that a person can have only one, but then turning around and granting an additional wish to one of the antagonists without any explanation. The idea that "wishes" have unintended consequences ala the old monkey's paw style curse, is fine and may explain a trade off in powers that is part of the story, but later on it seems that the wish granter may take anything they so choose in exchange for the wish. The long standing joke about Wonder Woman flying in an invisible plane is another one of those confusing conundrums that are largely skimmed over. Also, the setting is 1984 and there is a sequence with the President of the U.S., but that person is never referred to by name and the actor playing the part bears very little resemblance to the 40th President. The answer that the President gives to a question about his deepest wish is the exact opposite of the widely known desire that Reagan had for no nuclear weapons. It was the underpinning of the Strategic Defense Initiative to render such weapons powerless.
I generally avoid reading or listening to other reviews before I provide my hot take on a film. I waited to edit the Lambcast on this subject until after I'd seen the movie and formed my own opinions. My friends on the Lamb were harder on the movie than I was, so maybe these criticisms are not as minimal as I thought. I just know that although I was glad to see the film (In a Theater!), I was let down by the script and direction. There are some fine action scenes but the heart of the movie should have been the relationship between Diana and Barbara, and that turns out to merely be the gall bladder of the film.
So when I reviewed "The Croods" seven years ago, I finished off my comments by suggesting that there is no need for a sequel and that going to the well again would probably diminish the results. Let me say I was wrong. It turns out, that there is an idea for a sequel that might be worth some time to develop, and you should never underestimate the talent of artists who are given enough creative freedom. While "The Croods: A New Age" is not essential, it is a remarkably entertaining diversion and it comes at a time when we need those kinds of diversions.
This family of Cavemen has a voice cast that includes three Academy Award winning actors, and several more very talented performers who imbue the characters with some personality as they are put through their paces. This is a raucous film, that mostly lets the plot move along without making much sense but allowing the characters to entertain us and the production design to dazzle us. The writers, artists and director have focused on elements that are appealing to watch without trying to be too heavy handed in the message department. The narrative is simple, the Croods encounter a more evolved group of people and culture clash ensues.
As a baby boomer, I enjoyed the extensive use of the Partridge Family hit "I Think I Love You" , and I hope that because it is a song from fifty years ago, it comes across as a classic rather than simply a pop culture reference that today's audiences will not recognize. The film makers largely eschew the overuse of contemporary pop elements with the exception of some things that they are mocking. "A New Age" is not just a reference to a time epoch in caveman world, but also takes a bite out of some modern trends like men's fashion sense and managing your katra. The idea of a balance in the environment gets broken when the new characters, appropriately named the Bettermans, are forced to confront the unintended consequences of their carefully regulated utopia.
One path that the story wisely does not exploit for the conventional purposes is the love angle that is embodied by Eep and Guys romance. You might expect a love triangle that pits the two women against one another, but thankfully, the creators find a more productive use for the two teen girls that does not involve one-upsmanship and prickly rivalry. The conflict at the end is more comedic and focused on a wacky culture and the baiting of two teen girls never arises. In fact, the women get a funny sequence which is not very organic, but feels more authentic than a similar moment in "Avenger's Endgame". Cloris Leachman gets another chance to show us why she has been a successful character actor for fifty plus years, and fans of comic book style TV shows and movies will feel appreciative of the homage, however in-organic, that the girls in the story get.
There was a nice sized crowd at our screening, in spite of the covid limitation on capacity, it almost felt like it really was a Thanksgiving weekend like any other at the cinema. The movie is not essential but it is enjoyable and the visuals are enough to keep our admiration for the animation wizards at Dreamworks, pretty high. While the story telling is not up to Pixar standards, the art work certainly is and the humor should appeal to kids especially.
I love history, it is where some of the most amazing stories get told and they are not fiction. While you always want to be careful about taking a feature film as authoritative on a subject, many of them do reflect events fairly accurately or at least convey the essence of that history. This is a story I'd not heard of, it is apparently largely true, and it worked twice as well for me because I have never encountered it before. This independent film was the only new film opening this last week and as soon as I saw who the star was, I was ready to commit.
Set immediately at the conclusion of the war in Europe in 1945, Captain Joseph Pillar of the Canadian military, who is a Dutch Jew, has returned home to locate art treasures plundered by the Nazi's during the occupation. After discovering a Vermeer, in Goring's personal collection, he attempts to track down how this piece of art ended up in the hands of Hitler's second in command. The story appears at first to be a mystery about collaborators in Amsterdam, who allowed these treasures to be taken in return for money and special treatment by the invaders. Pillar tracks this painting as a legitamate sale, through brokers and others in the Dutch art community. Here he encounters Han van Meegeren, an unsuccessful artist who somehow seems to have thrived during the war.
The interviews and cat and mouse games played out in the first third of the story suggest that the film is headed in a particular direction, but of course there is a turn that drives the rest of the story in a very different direction . Van Meergeren is played by Guy Pearce, an actor who has always been a favorite of mine. Han is a contradictory personality, he faces execution for collaboration with the enemy, but seems to be a charming, slightly eccentric social climber, who was popular in the party circuit, despite being perceived as a mediocre talent. Pearce plays him as aloof from the threat he faces and distracted as he tries to continue painting while incarcerated. Pillar and his partner are befuddled a bit by this attitude and they delve deeper into the events that lead them to Han in the first place.
As I said, there is a twist that alters the relationship between Han Van Meergeren and Captain Pillar. When the film focuses on that relationship, it usually works well. Unfortunately, we get a back story about Pillar and his wife during the war, and there is a potential Romance between him and his art curator assistant Mina. The Captain is played by Danish actor Claes Bang, and he is sullen, guilt ridden and not really very interesting. When the focus of his role changes, he doesn't seem to be very motivated. Maybe the first time director Dan Friedkin, didn't see that his leading man was coming off like a stiff. It is additionally problematic because Pearce is infusing his character with a sly energy that firs the way the story ultimately plays out.
There is a creepy side story about the Dutch government trying to punish the collaborators, and it is represented by two characters that add to some confusion at the end. There is an obstinate judge who seems uninterested in justice and more committed to the government's narrative than he should be. Then there is the police detective who claims jurisdiction over the case and motivates the trial in the last third of the story. He comes across like the Dutch version of the Gestapo, rather than a dedicated civil servant. There is one more twist and I can't say I quite understood what point was being made. I am also unclear as to how accurate it is to the real story.
As I said at the start, what makes this film worth seeing is not necessarily the drama but rather the history. Regardless of motivations, Han Van Meergeren seems to have been a brilliant artist, unappreciated for those talents but remembered for his cleverness. The film has accomplished at least one objective, I want to read the book this is based on and find out more about this less known aspect of WWII.
This is a movie that I enjoyed but wanted to like more than I did. The premise is the main selling point and it is a great one. This is a mashup of body switch comedies like "Freaky Friday" with a traditional slasher film like "Friday the 13th". Doesn't that sound fun for horror fans? Then as an added twist the victim body is of the opposite gender, but not a cheerleader, rather it is a girl who is underappreciated and struggling with self esteem issues and grief. There is a pattern here if you look closely at the film's pedigree.
The writer/director of this film is Christopher Landon, who previously brought us "Happy Deathday" both 1 and 2. I was not a big fan of the first movie and never saw the second. The one thing that made "Happy Deathday" unique was the redemption arc of the lead character. "Freaky" tries to replicate that formula by making this a story of empowerment in two contradictory ways. First, the nebish girl gets a makeover when her body is occupied by the serial killer. Now I know that this is a fantasy comedy and we have to suspend a lot of disbelief in the first place, but the conundrum here is one of the writers own making. By taking shortcuts in the storytelling to hook us in, he sacrifices opportunities for humor and internal logic. The killer, known as the Blissfield Butcher, has been written as a mindless hulking transient with severe hygiene issues and maybe a drug problem. So how does it make sense that he would have a stronger fashion eye and makeup skills than the teen girl whose body he is occupying? If the killer were more Hannibal Lector than Jason Voorhees, this could work. The writer just wants us to go with it. The teen girl Millie, does get a little more sensible transition, marveling in being able to urinate standing up and turning her nose up at the smell emminating from her new body. The second way the story plays up the female empowerment is by letting her revel in her newly aquired strength.
Serial killer in the girls body, ends up taking revenge on the girls tormentors, with just the slightest amount of reason to limit it to those figures. If the story let it play out more this would be ok, as it is, it feels a bit rushed and coincidental. Meanwhile, the parallel story of our hero trapped in the hulking body of the maniac does work itself out a little better with trying to connect with her friends at school to get some help. Finding yourself romantically and in your relationship with you mother is a little harder to believe. This is the personal growth story which is supposed to add some weight to the story. I think it clutters up the horror and only occasionally adds to the humor.
Vince Vaughn is the star of the film rightly so, because he has to personify a character. Unfortunately, Kathryn Newton doesn't get as much to do after the switch. She is believable in the pre switch section, but merely stares aggressively in the main part of the story, because the serial killer, while having a fashion sense, has no personality or character traits.
OK, enough with the thoughtful insights, the movie does have two or three pretty gruesome murders to keep us engaged as horror fans. The Opening section that sets up the supernatural twist, has some graphic violence but also a touch of humor. The cocked head of the killer after pinning a victim to the wall is right out of "Halloween" and was subsequently used in some of the Friday the 13th films. Two effective murders are basically spoiled by the trailer, but the buzzsaw sequence still shocks because of It’s graphic depiction.
There is a coda section that is meant to drive the female empowerment theme home at the end. It makes sense only because we know that the killer always has an extra scene in the conclusions of these sorts of films. It would mean more if the killer had motivations or some background character, but all he has is the conventions of the genre.
So my reaction is similar to the feelings I had about the earlier film, but where that story made the redemption work a little, it simply feels shoehorned into this film. The movie has enough going for it to make a trip to a theater, but it will quickly fade as other better executed horror/comedy mashups come along.
How can you beat a Halloween experience like this? We saw "The Evil Dead" and it was introduced by a conversation with Ash himself, Bruce Campbell.
Having been a fan of Mr. Campbell I had a pretty good idea what to expect. I went to a screening of "Bubba-Ho-Tep" back in 2002 with my oldest daughter, and Bruce was there and he was hysterical. 18 years has not changed that. Bruce Campbell knows how to work the audience and make a story interesting to listen to.
The above is a link to a few brief clips from his Conversation that day.
The awesome Paramount Theater in Austin Texas. was our host for the day. If you look past me you will see Bruce in the Doorway posing for pictures with VIP Guests.
Oh yeah, here are a couple of VIP Guests.
If you ever get a chance to hear Bruce in person, jump on it. Completely worth it.
Whatever you do, don't watch the trailer that is posted above. This is one of those too numerous examples where the trailer is basically a condensed version of the film and it gives away plot points, action beats and storyline without regard to what you want to know going in. I was lucky, I'd never heard anything about the movie, I never saw a trailer, I only knew that Liam Neeson was in it and it fits the action genre that he has owned for the last decade. The truth is, you will know most of where the movie is going as the story unfolds, there really are no big surprises in the film, but why would you want every highlight to be foreshadowed by an image from the trailer?
So, not having seen the preview, I am watching this and I know immediately who the "bad guys" are going to be. All you needed to do was see Jai Courtney and Anthony Ramos sitting in their cubicle and you just know, these are going to turn out to be crooked cops (or FBI agents as it is). You also keep suspecting that Jeffery Donovan might be a bigger crook except they give him a dog that he actually takes care of. That would not be a scene in the movie if there was a turn for his character. I watched every season of "Burn Notice" and I was happy to see him in a movie, but he does have a somewhat dark persona. Two decades ago, instead of Jai Courtney as the obvious heavy, Robert Patrick would have fit the bill, but as time as marched on, he more naturally fits the senior agent with a case of cynicism and a short story arc.
The whole point of these kinds of movies is to allow us to do some hero worshipping of Neeson, and watch him use his special skills to bring down the baddies. I think he still looks to be in good shape but it probably is a better idea to have him taking those guys out more with his wits than with his physical skills. The use of IEDs is more believable than a 70 something guy beating up a 30 something guy. Of course nothing in this movie is particularly believable. The premise is that this guy commits these crimes for no reason, never spends the money, and has principles that come back to haunt him only after he falls in love. That is a bit of a stretch.
What is not a stretch is the chemistry between Liam Neeson and Kate Walsh. I don't really know her as an actor although she seemed really familiar to me for some reason. Although she has extensive credits, the thing that I recognized her from was a Cadillac commercial from twelve years ago. She has a great line in the ad, and the same personality was on display in this movie. She is mature enough to feel like a romantic partner for Neeson, and still be someone that can be changed by the experiences the character is going through. The cute meet was maybe the best written scene in the film, and I think they could pull off a romantic movie about adults if anyone is willing to see such a movie anymore.
So this is a suspense thriller with a revenge plotline about a heist that doesn't go according to plan. Does that sound like they mixed together enough genres to get your attention? For me it did not matter that it was derivative, soft edged in regard to the violence, and preposterous in concept. I went to this because it was a movie in theaters, not also streaming, just in theaters. It stars Liam Neeson who I love, and it was Sunday afternoon. There was popcorn and the world almost felt normal again. I want the theater experience to return, so I will be going as much as I can, and spending money at the concession stand so the Cinemas can remain open. If the movie is passable and stars someone I enjoy watching, so much the better.
