Director: Danny Boyle Runtime: 1hr 34 mins Rated: R
Studio: Pathé/Searchlight Pictures Screenwriter: Danny Boyle, Simon Beaufoy
Inspired by: Aron Ralston’s novel “Between a Rock and a Hard Place”
Cast: James Franco, Amber Tamblyn, Kate Mara, Clémence Poésy
127 Hours is a short film that aims to draw in audiences based on the appeal of its leading man and that it’s based on real-life events. In 2003 real-life Aron Ralston set out on a day trip in Utah’s Blue John Canyon and suffered an accident that pins his arm in-between the rock face and a boulder. Ralston records what he believes to be his last days explaining how he ended up in the state he was, for whoever finds him one day.
Since this film is based on Ralston’s book about the incident, he lives. That’s not a spoiler. It would be if someone else wrote a book about Ralston’s accident.
It isn’t easy to create a film where you have, essentially, one character. This character has what amounts to an exterior monologue the entire time. This dialogue conundrum is layered with the setting. The majority of the film centers around Aron (Franco), who’s stuck in a highly isolated canyon crack. From a cinematography perspective, Danny Boyle did an excellent job showing the landscape and how it related to Aron during the day and while he was trapped. It helped to cement the seriousness of his predicament for the audience. The director also recreates the real Ralston’s actual camera log. In doing so, we have a performance by Franco that is a one-man show. He has to physically work in a minimal space, on a rope, where he mentally and emotionally swings like a pendulum as time progresses.
James Franco as Aron Ralston in ‘127 Hours’ Image: Pathé via IMDb.com
While Franco brings much-needed energy to this story and its underlying messages and themes, it would have been better as a TV movie. Today this type of film is more likely to be picked up by a company like Netflix, which didn’t start original content till 2013. 127 Hours isn’t a terrible movie, but it’s the kind of film you only watch once, in school on substitute day, or as an airplane film. Sadly, the trailer for the film gives too much away, leaving little to be surprised by.
While the messages and lessons of the film to the audience are important, so no one has a Ralston-like “oops” moment, 127 Hours is forgettable as a movie. Forgettable isn’t worth a watchlist spot.
Director: Bong Joon-Ho Runtime: 2 hr. 6 min Rated: R
Studio: Moho Films Screenwriter: Bong Joon-Ho, Kelly Masterson
Cast: Chris Evans, Ed Harris, John Hurt, Tilda Swinton, Octavia Spencer, Song Kang-ho, Ko Asung, Jamie Bell
Snowpiercer is a French comic brought to the big screen by South Korean director Bong Joon-ho. The year is 2031, and the entire world’s remaining population lives aboard a train that never stops moving, or everyone on it will freeze to death. Just like the rest of the world did almost two decades prior. Humanity is an endangered species, and the train is the Hotel California. You could check-in, but you’re never going to leave.
This train generates energy by constantly moving, and since the great freeze means it can never stop. It does one lap around the globe each year. The train, this snowpiercer, was created by a man called Wilford, who divided the train into three parts. The elite at the front, poorest at the end, and the workers in the middle who service the train. The inhabitants at the back endure much. They live off of gelatin-like “protein bars” and nothing else. They have their children taken, live in squalor, and are executed periodically to reduce the population. These individuals are never allowed beyond the train’s tail. So, surprise, they sometimes revolt. In Snowpiercer, they try again, with a new plan, to make it to the front and control the engine. After all, those that control the engine control the world, such as it is.
I watched this film begrudgingly. I stopped it mid-film three times and took days in between to finish it. There needs to be more attention to detail for a plot like this to work on screen. Expand upon what’s not in the original material, or ignore it and make it better. He’d hardly be the first moviemaker to do so. This film has a trailer that holds up this movie to be far more exciting than it is. A film shouldn’t create so many questions and not answer them.
‘Snowpiercer’ staring Chris Evans and Jamie Bell. Image: Moho Films via RogerEbert.com
The beginning of the film drops the audience into a story in progress. While it’s not difficult to catch on to the plight and goals of the characters, it is a little confusing. Utilizing this tactic is problematic because the viewer isn’t invested yet in the characters. Bong Joon-ho’s choice to cast Chris Evans as Curtis and Octavia Spencer as Tanya aren’t enough. Both are phenomenal actors, but their addition to this cast was to grab more Western viewers, not because actual acting was required.
Initially, the director didn’t want to cast Chris Evans because he was too fit. Malnourished from living in poverty, it would be hard for anyone to believe he was from the tail car. All the people there are frail. So, instead, he’s covered in clothing to hide his bulk. On that logic, I’d like to point out that he cast Octavia Spencer! No disrespect to her, but she’s a heavy-set woman. It’s the reverse logic of not wanting a physically fit person cast. After almost two decades on a train in squalor-like conditions, she’d be thinner. She’s the only plus-sized person I saw in that section. So back to my point about more Western eyeballs.
Child labor in ‘Snowpiercer’ Image: Moho Films via the Nerdist.com
The logic of this film makes zero sense. The train isn’t that big when you think about it or see shots of it. How is livestock raised or food for so many people aboard a train? How do you maintain the train? Where do the spare parts go, how do you make more? At what point do you run out of clothes, supplies in general, on a ride you can’t stop? How many people have to die every year to sustain everyone else?
Now, cultures other than mine find eating insects acceptable, okay. What’s not okay is how it’s depicted in this film. Besides being excessively disgusting, where did they all come from? The squalor from the tail and the production/growth of food alone isn’t enough to generate that many insects frequently enough to be used as they are in this film. Remember, they are all dead outside the train.
Protein bars for every meal in ‘Snowpiercer’ Image: CJ Entertainment via Filmschoolrejects.com
If I, or you, were boarding this life-saving train on day one, one of the many questions I would want to be answered is, what about the tracks? This train rides around on one gigantic loop around the Earth; what keeps the tracks from freezing so much the train doesn’t derail after months or years? Everyone dies if too much snow blocks a section and stops the train. These are no small questions, and someone could have dreamed up an answer and brought it up with relative ease, but no. Instead, the audience is dropped into a story where the plot is to take the engine car or die trying. In a gritty, difficult to watch (camera work), violent hail Mary to overthrow an authoritarian dictator and his lackeys.
As dystopian, apocalyptic-like, fate of humanity films go, Snowpiercer is a dull, thinly plotted, implausible train wreck despite the otherwise talented ensemble. It’s not worth the hype many gave it nor a place on anyone’s watchlist.
Studio: Paramount Pictures Screenwriter: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman
Based on: TV series Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry
Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Simon Pegg, Lenard Nimoy, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood
It’s always a pleasure when something classic is reimagined and doesn’t stink. It’s even more enjoyable when there’s a substantial time gap between the two. Today I’m talking about Star Trek. Yes, a few T.V. shows bear that name, but this film is rebooting the original T.V. series in a fashion.
Paramount Pictures Trailer for ‘Star Trek’ via Classic Trailers on YouTube.
J.J. Abrams directed a star-studded cast that perfectly depicted and paid homage to the original characters and the actors that played them. If you’re familiar with the original T.V. show or films, you can appreciate it more than if you have not. Creator Gene Rodenberry crafted a reality that explores space, sure, but set the bar for how humanity should be. Peaceful, collaborative, intelligent, inclusive, and open-minded. He was decades ahead of his time. His amazingly radical notions don’t have quite the impact today as they did when Star Trek first aired, but that’s a good thing. It represents progress.
“Space, the final frontier.” I think of these iconic words as I look out an airplane window at 40,000 feet writing this. The multiple shades of blue, nothing visible beneath me, sparse speckling of clouds smeared onto the sky like an artist at work. It’s nothing compared to seeing the entire planet from above and afar. To try and imagine that or other worlds is beyond the scope of my appreciation. So when J.J. Abrams and the production team gave birth to this remake in such a vivid, plausible, and fun manner, it just had to be good. Right?
Yelchin, Pine, Pegg, Urban, Cho, and Saldana in Paramount Pictures ‘Star Trek’ Photo via Slashfilm.com
Captain James T. Kirk (Pine), Spock (Quinto), Lt. Uhura (Saldana), Soo-Lu (Cho), Ensign Chekov (Yelchin), Doctor McCoy (Urban), and Scotty (Pegg) are all superb casting choices! Everyone has this well-blended chemistry that makes you fall for them as their respective characters. Though Zachary Quinto’s resemblance to the original Spock, Lenard Nimoy, is uncanny. It’s one thing for an actor to look like someone else, but accurately depicting them is vital, and Quinto makes an excellent Spock. R.I.P. Mr. Nimoy.
This film introduces the Star Trek universe and the cast’s journey together. However, how the story originates is brilliant. Using one of the original Trek members as the catalyst to the plot allows the story to honor the original and carve out its own path for newer generations. It’s a genuinely clever way to reset many things about the original without destroying its memory.
Leonard Nimoy and Zachary Quinto as Star Trek’s Spock. Credit: People.com
The freshly minted crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise, the flagship of Star Fleet, work together to tackle the immense challenge of stopping a rogue Romulan captain named Nero (Bana) who is out to destroy the Federation, one planet at a time. Why? And how do you stop someone that can destroy planets? The answer to that and the reason for the plot working so well was the addition of “Spock Prime” (Nimoy) as he’s credited. The concept of the plot doesn’t work without his inclusion.
It’s not just Mr. Nimoy but the entire cast who brings depth, energy, and believability to their roles. After all, that is what anyone wants from an actor, an outstanding performance. Star Trek gets that from everyone attached to the film; to me, that is a sign of great hiring. It’s also a sign of a great script. A project can have the best actors around, which can flop from a terrible script or a bad director.
The Romulan ship, the Narada in ‘Star Trek.’ Image: Paramount Pictures
Another attribute that makes this iteration of Star Trek so appealing to watch is the production that created believable costumes for the various aliens, the sets and props, and the technology used to complete all the CGI. Every time Star Trek is taken on anew, it automatically benefits from the newest filmmaking tools of the time. This franchise has come a long way in visual appeal since 1966. It’s come a long way in general and paved the way for many first on T.V.
This Star Trek does a spectacular job of character development in weaving the storylines together and representing how different species manage meeting new people in life and on the job.
Bridge of the U.S.S. Enterprise in Paramount Pictures ‘Star Trek’
Fantastic acting, set design, cinematography, directing, story, and humor make this film worth the effort into creating it. All these attributes created a movie worth seeing. J.J. Abrams boldly chose to go where many have gone before and comes out of warp speed with a refreshing winner of a reboot of a beloved sci-fi franchise. This Star Trek is worthy of a place on your watchlist!
Hello all. It’s been months since my last post. Months. I can’t believe how the time slipped past me like that. I meant to post much sooner and apologize for my lapse. I’m in the process of trying to moving, that was made more difficult with medical issues that have popped up. All of that is stressful and something needed to go. That something was my blog, temporarily. It’s important to have balance and manageable stress in ones life. Watching movies and writing is usually enjoyable for me and it wasn’t for a while. My goal is to start posting again within the next month. Thank you to everyone who follows Watch List Reviews or just comes across it and enjoys a post. Cheers!
Directed by: James Gunn Rated: PG-13 Runtime: 2 hrs 18 mins
Studio: Marvel Studios Screenwriter: James Gunn
Cast: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, Pom Klementieff, Kurt Russell
‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2’ Teaser Trailer from Marvel Studios
So here we find our Guardians of the Galaxy, again, as the MCU’s tenth film. The Guardians are hired by a race called the Sovereign to save their planet’s power supply from becoming a dimensional-jumping onto-slug’s dinner feast. That plays out how it does, with the Sovereign chasing them across space for offending them. Remember, Rocket (Cooper) is a part of this group.
Along the way, they encounter a pair (Russell and Lementieff) who claim to know Quill’s (Pratt) father. Vol. 1 focused on Quill’s mom’s issues, so it follows that James Gunn would make Vol. 2 about his father’s issues. So, Peter, Drax (Bautista), and Gatorade (Saldana) go with the pair. Rocket and Groot (Diesel) have another task, including dealing with the incredible Karen Gillan’s Nebula.
‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2’ Pom Klementieiff, Dave Bautista, Chris Pratt, Kurt Russell, Zoe Saldana Credit: Marvel Studios via IMDb.com
In Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, the characters explore places and ideas that change how they view family and the universe. It’s touching moments like when Rocket gets a therapy lesson from Yondu of all people, with the humor and action that ground the story and moves it along with ease. The soundtrack helps too! Gunn’s starship of misfit toys and the well-selected tracks mesh so well. It’s another dose of quirk, the opposite of the Avengers ensemble, and it’s incredible how it all comes together. Plenty of people have posed the question ‘team Iron Man or team Cap’ over the years. What they should have been asking is, are you team Avengers or team GotG? Really, who would you want to save the universe?
As a sequel, the surprises of the characters’ personality traits and Gunn’s outlandish style is gone for the audience in Vol.2. Thankfully, it’s not gone-gone. Gunn’s focus is always the characters so the story feels like it’s organically in response to them.
Michael Rooker and Bradley Cooper in ‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2’ Credit: Marvel Studios via Forbes.com
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 is a fun, energetic, semi-dirty follow-up to Vol. 1. While not all the jokes hit their mark, plenty still do. The comedic style is still there, just like the tone and spunk of the first one. The story is solid, considering it focuses on Quill’s daddy issues. Full of sass and wit, it also has substance and continued character development, which is essential when characters will be seen again and again.
Personally, I think that Yondu and Baby Groot steal the film overall. Share your thoughts on your favorite Guardian character in the comments!
If you enjoyed Vol.1, you’d love Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 just as much. So it should be on your watchlist!
Directed by: Rob Marshall Rated: PG-13 Runtime: 2 hrs. 25 mins
Studio: Sony Pictures Screenwriter: Robin Swicord
Based on: Novel of same name by Arthur Golden
Cast: Ziyi Zhang, Gong Li, Ken Watanabe, Michelle Yeoh, Suzuko Ohgo, Kaori Momoi, Youki Kuhoh, Kôji Yakusho
Memoirs of a Geisha is an American Hollywood film about the mysterious lives of a class of people within Japanese culture. It’s directed by a white man. The art and costume departments were also led by white people. The book upon which this film is based was written by a white man. The main cast is Chinese. So, yes. Let’s get the points of cultural impropriety out of the way first, shall we?
This movie would most likely not be made today without Japanese cast members as the leads. It would undoubtedly involve someone behind the scenes as a consultant. This would remove the tarnish this film suffers from culturally, at a minimum. As it is, the cast looks and sounds Chinese. One of the original points in casting was that there were not enough Japanese actors who could speak English well enough to be considered for specific roles. As a white American, I’m not so stupid; I can’t tell the difference between Chinese and Japanese people. Apparently, I am an exception, as the thinking was many Westerners are too dumb and close-minded to notice. Is that true? Yes, but how many possess the intellect and patience to sit through a film like this anyway? So, if you can get over the casting issues, keep reading.
Memoirs of a Geisha is a dramatic period piece (1920-the 1940s) that follows the path of a young girl, Chiyo (Ohgo), who is sold to a Geisha house. Such a place is where certain girls/women train to dance, play music, pour tea, and master the art of conversation. To be a companion to men in public settings. Not physically or sexually at all. They are a status symbol, moving displays of art and grace. It is said to be a great honor. And yet, what is unspoken is that this lifestyle is a form of modernized indentured servitude. Which makes me wonder if that’s historically accurate.
The film begins with Chiyo being sold and taken from her home, a small fishing village, to a place with more rooftops than she’s ever seen before in her short life. Where she’s expected to scrub, clean, sew and do anything else that’s demanded of her. To serve. Until one day when she meets a man who shows her an ounce of compassion and kindness. No one else has in a long time. From this, the film is a springboard for Chiyo’s resolve to become a Geisha so she can see the man again.
Ken Watanabe, Suzuko Ohgo in ‘Memoirs of a Geisha’ Credit: Sony Pictures via Cinemaholic.com
That moment is one I have an issue with. Chiyo is still a child, and her life’s ambition to become a Geisha is entangled with her desire for this man, known as “Chairman” (Watanabe), to become her patron. Someone who will look after her for the rest of her life. The narrative frames this as a love story, but it’s not. It’s a girl’s infatuation with someone just because they were kind to her. It carries on like this for years as her motivation for everything she does afterward. It’s a dangerous, unhealthy obsession. She never even learns his actual name. This obsession is encouraged by Mameha (Yeoh), who reminds Chiyo that Geisha are not entitled to love or have a life of their own. It makes a person wonder what it is all for.
As Chiyo gets ready to make her Geisha debut, she is given a Geisha name, Sayuri (Zhang).
The beginning of the film’s vantage point of Chiyo/Sayuri as a child (ideally) lets the audience appreciate all that she’s endured and put up with as a young woman about to become a Geisha. How she deals with an established, jealous rival from her own house, Hatsumomo (Li). An angry, vicious viper who clearly can’t handle the competition. Her character is a constant point of conflict for Chiyo/Sayuri. She causes much treachery and deceit throughout the film. This back and forth is just one of the many areas that provided layers of detail and cultural nuances. Often adding to the pace of the film so it shifts from beat to beat with ease.
Ziyi Zhang, Michelle Yeoh, Gong Li in ‘Memoirs of a Geisha’ Credit: Sony Pictures
If the cultural nuances of Geisha or Japanese culture haven’t been bastardized for the period as a whole. I do wonder how much is wrong and what is accurate.
Many of the characters are given some back story to grant their place in the plot with more relevance than they deserve, but they all serve a purpose. No one seems like a throwaway character. That said, the cast all deliver a performance that is as good as could be expected. It’s not difficult to understand anyone in their attempts to speak English clearly. Gong Li and Suzuka Ohgo are probably the most energetic actresses, with the most ability to branch out emotionally. As such, their depictions of Hatsumomo and young Chiyo are the most engaging to watch.
Memoirs of a Geisha has this pull. From the start of the film, there is a tone that is set. One of seriousness and mystery. Where the further in you go, the more layers are pulled back to reveal this atmospheric bubble where dance, cherry trees, kimonos, and tea are the only reality that matter. Where women are locked in battles of words and wit to acquire a patron.
Gong Li ‘Memoirs of a Geisha’ Credit: Sony Pictures via IMDb.com
The ending to this film is like the book. So, the fault or questions that creep in at the conclusion are not solely those of the filmmakers. The movie’s last act takes place at the end of world war two. History explains how that went for Japan. My question is, how would Arthur Golden resolve his Sayuri and Chairman storyline without the crutch of adding in the war as a copout? He created this story that eludes and divulges the secrets of the lives of Geisha. With all the rules and taboos therein. I think this story could have been stronger if the main plot was resolved without U.S. soldiers coming to Japan. If the story had been set sooner in time. How would that have affected the trajectory of the character’s endings if he had kept Sayuri on her delusional path? I have no idea. It’s a question you can think about if you see the film for yourself.
Is Memoirs of a Geisha terrible? That depends on how you feel about the casting, first and foremost. Overall is the acting unwatchable? Not at all. The set designs and costumes are all remarkable looking. Elegant. Detailed. The choreography… ask someone with knowledge.
For an American-made film with an all-Asian cast, I can see its desire to expand beyond what gets typically made here. To provide a film that would expand Westerners’ mindsets on the notion of ‘foreign films.’ Because if this film was made with a Japanese cast, spoken in Japanese, with English subtitles, virtually no one in America would have gone to see it. That’s assuming it made it to smaller local theaters at all. American’s are idiotic, lazy, snobs when it comes to the idea of reading and watching at the same time during a film. Well, the entire film.
Ziyi Zhang in ‘Memoirs of a Geisha’ Credit: Sony Pictures via Slant Magazine
The non-American Asian community will undoubtedly find faults with this film enough to not want to see it. That’s fair. However, there are plenty of factors about Memoirs of a Geisha that land it on the watchable list. Again if you don’t mind the casting flubs and a story around women and their issues, it’s a good watch. Just make sure you’re not distracted while viewing.
Directed by: James Gunn Rated: PG-13 Runtime: 2 hr 5 min
Screenwriter: James Gunn, Nicole Pearlman Studio: Marvel Studios
Based on: Various Marvel comic book characters
Cast: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, Dave Bautista, Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, Lee Pace
If the Avengers were a motley crew when forming, what does that make the Guardians of the Galaxy? Who are, at best, a collection of misfit toys. Ones without the benefits of standalone films preceding their silver screen MCU team-up. A group of characters virtually unknown before this film.
None of the “Guardian” characters in the MCU’s version are original members in the comics. Not one. Guardians of the Galaxy (the comic) first appeared in 1969. Throughout the decades, they went largely under the radar of popularity. In 2008 Marvel relaunched, reshaped? reformed? the Guardians into the content director James Gunn found inspiration in. Fine. Great. Whatever. When this first came out, I had only seen one of James Gunn’s films. I could live the rest of my life without seeing anymore. So when I heard he was directing this movie, I was skeptical, at best. Marvel did what? I went and saw it without managing to see a trailer for it beforehand. So, yes, I went because it was Marvel. Surely they wouldn’t screw the pooch at this juncture in the MCU?
Bradley Cooper, Chris Pratt, Vin Diesel, Dave Bautista, Zoe Saldana in ‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1 Credit: Marvel Studios via The Hollywood Reporter
No. They. Did. Not. In fact, this film grossed over $600 million more than it cost to make. Bravo! Okay, the pooch is fine. And James Gunn raised the bar for himself in terms of his filmmaking skills. How did he manage this? He dove into the treasure trove of characters associated with the Guardians, the relaunched version, and molded that into characters and a story that would seamlessly attach itself to the MCU’s ultimate storyline goals.
In logical viewing order, this film is number nine. First, Captain Marvel introduced the audience, Colson and Nick Fury, to the reality of life outside of Earth. Still, the movie’s “public” wasn’t aware of it. That came later with Thor and certainly with Avengers. With Guardians of the Galaxy, the audience is introduced to space travel beyond the Bifrost. To new worlds and characters, and still connects it to Earth, the Battle of New York, Thanos, and beyond.
In James Gunn’s version, the “Guardians” are Peter Quill a.k.a. Starlord (Pratt), Gamora (Saldana), the adopted daughter of Thanos, Drax the Destroyer (Bautista), Groot (Diesel), a nine-foot walking tree species, and Rocket the Raccoon (Cooper).
Karen Gillan in ‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1’ Credit: Marvel Studios via Syfywire.com
Adventure and comedy ensue when Quill can’t make money off a job he stole from his boss, Yondu (Rooker). Followed by a public altercation with bounty hunters (Rocket and Groot) that Yondu sets on him. The extra stiff wrinkle is that a mass murderer, Ronan (Pace), wants the item in question as well. He orders Gamora to retrieve the item for him. That doesn’t go as anticipated, and she is arrested with the others. Along the way, they meet Drax and agree to work together temporarily to stop Ronan from his genocidal goals. That’s the summary of this film, and yet, Guardians of the Galaxy is so much more than that. I really don’t want to give anything away. This version of the characters is excellent! They are everything all the other MCU characters to date are not. Guardians bring to the table a much-needed dose of humor and lightheartedness. All while facing some serious obstacles and foes. A more serious character might rebuke their cavalier attitudes and personas. What Gamora simply refers to as “idiots.” The Guardians rally, like the Avengers, and work together to tackle the tasks before them.
Lee Pace, Djimon Hounsou in ‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1’ Credit: Marvel Studios via CinemaBlend.com
The film’s pace always moves along, like an Olympic ice skater who displays a flawless performance. This is accomplished by the excellent cast chemistry and the fantastic performances of their respective characters, also with well-placed quips, jabs, and jokes throughout the film. Another contributor to the pace is the music. Between the jokes and the musical styles of the 1970s that just fit with this eclectic bunch, it really helps it move along. Additionally, it sets the tone of the film early on. Something that is always smart to do.
Frankly, this film’s story could have been poorly received if the audience wasn’t “feeling” this movie’s overall tone and cadence. Primarily when it’s held up against the early MCU films. It just doesn’t take itself seriously like the others. And yet, it’s just what the doctor ordered.
Guardians of the Galaxy is that underdog story that seemingly comes from know where and wins the hearts and minds of the audience. It adds to the MCU and still tells a grand standalone story that is deep, meaningful, watchable, enjoyable, and gifts the audience with characters it can’t help but love. A movie that can pull off all that is worth a place on your watchlist. Grab some snacks and settle in!
Directed by: Chris McKay Rated: PG-13 Runtime: 2 hrs 20 mins
Studio: Skydance, Paramount Pictures, Amazon Screenwriter: Zach Dean
Cast: Chris Pratt, Yvonne Strahovski, J.K. Simmons
The Tomorrow War is a story about humanity dealing with an extinction-level event. The best way to avert it is by the world coming together. Okay. The threat is aliens. Tired and well used, but, still, okay. Then…
Solider’s from 2051 show up via a portal of some kind in 2021. Explaining and warning that “We are you, 30 years in the future.”… “In eleven months, all human beings in the future will be wiped from the face of the Earth.” Unless, of course, the humans of 2021 help.
Director Chris McKay said in a Collider interview that he didn’t think about the time travel mechanics, as it didn’t matter to solving the issue of the story. That’s the gist of what he said anyway, and he couldn’t have been stupider for ignoring it. Just because the director doesn’t want to think about it doesn’t mean the audience won’t. Magically, all of the issues of time travel and creating paradoxes just vanish in his mind. Well, not in mine and not in others. Especially when the device which allows thousands or millions of people to travel through time and space is held together by the equivalent of tape and chicken wire. WTF? Do not beam me up, Scotty!
The main problem is that writer Zach Dean created and left the line stating “…all human beings…” all humans will be dead in eleven months. Well, if all of humanity is dead, how are there still people around 30 years later to come to 2021 and warn humanity? Words are important. A viewer shouldn’t need to pause their film (in this case) to try and figure out what they’ve seen before that can logically explain this.
Screenshot of device that allows time travel in ‘The Tomorrow War’ Credit: Paramount Pictures and Amazon
What should have been said is ‘almost all of humanity will be wiped from the face of the Earth.’ Maybe even giving an estimate of who’s left in eleven months. Then the audience can follow along with ease and still grasp the dire predicament.
The entire world gets on board. Yeah! Like Independence Day.
But the lack of logic and common sense is so prevalent it’s incredible this film got made. So, first, some military personnel are sent to the future, then everyday people are conscripted. They are given no training or actual gear. You have a motor mouth that can’t load a weapon and points it at himself. Other characters take spare ammo off the dead, which is a brilliant move, while others seem to never run out of ammo. Future humanity “needs” help yet firebombs its recruits just to kill the enemy. Past humans are no more than to-go fodder. It reeks of desperation and poor storytelling.
‘The Tomorrow War’ alien Credit: Paramount Pictures and Amazon via Variety.com
Make no mistake, this shitty script is full of holes that leave it dull and irritatingly illogical to follow along with. Like a high school student with the answers to when, why, where, and how a plot point no one in the thirty years after him was able to figure out. Since when do we default to a teenager for “expert” information? That a plane, an American one at that, could just fly deep into Russian airspace undetected? Give me a break. That specific scientific components with alien DNA will *magically* be unlocked in less than a day? Should I continue? Sadly, I could.
Sadly, all of that isn’t a summary of the entire film. This movie clocks in at 2 hours and 20 minutes and feels double that. Just when you think the film is going to end, it keeps going. There were so many areas where the pace needed to pick up or be left out altogether. It’s not that The Tomorrow War doesn’t know what it wants to be or where it wants to go. It doesn’t have that problem. Its most significant issue is that it tries to be like every other sci-fi creation before it, all while being fresh. It’s not rotten, but it does stink.
Jasmine Mathews, Chris Pratt in ‘The Tomorrow War’ Credit: Amazon and Paramount Pictures via SyfyWire.com
Perspective is critical in this film in that everything is from Dan Forester’s (Pratt) perception. How he processes the events unfolding around him, his take on solving it, everything. The filmmaker’s choice allows Pratt’s character to have a fuller story arc, which is well developed. Pratt actually does a great job of depicting a loving father, former soldier, teacher, and unwitting participant. However, the focal point being on him is at the expense of the other characters.
There are some impressive action sequences with the fighters and aliens in various places. The CGI isn’t terrible. The aliens at least look like something I haven’t seen before. Those are the best things I can say about this movie.
The Tomorrow War was a waste of my time and brain cells. There are so many other films in the sci-fi realm worth seeing over this. Any of the movies this one rips as “inspiration,” such as Pacific Rim, Jumper, Alien, Independence Day, A Quiet Place, or War of the Worlds. The Tomorrow War is an illogical, tedious waste of effort that has no place on a watchlist.
Directed by: Alan Taylor Runtime: 1 hr 52 mins Rated: PG-13
Screenwriter: Stephen McFeely, Christopher Yost, Christopher Markus
Studio: Marvel Studios
Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Natalie Portman, Idris Elba, Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo, Christopher Eccleston, Jamie Alexander, Kat Dennings, Zachary Levi, Stellan Skarsgård, Ray Stevenson, Tadanobu Asano
Thor: The Dark World dives deeper into Asgard’s history and shows off more of what a stunning place it is. Full of detail and scope.
The plot introduces The Dark Elves, led by Malekith (Eccleston). An ancient race of beings that ruled and thrived before Asgard came to lead the nine realms. Thought to be long gone, they reemerge as a vehicle for the aether’s introduction into the MCU. The substance is the Dark Elves’ most prized possession, one they will destroy worlds to reclaim. Alongside that, they want revenge for practically being exterminated eons prior. As reasons for retribution go, that’s a fair one.
Malekith and the Dark Elves’ story is believable, but the premise is cut off at the legs by Marvel’s MCU goals. It could have been so much grander instead of petty. Christopher Eccleston’s performance as Malekith was as outstanding as the script allowed for. The fault isn’t with Eccleston’s depiction. He’s a talented actor who could have taken the character in any direction if he had been allowed.
In Thor: The Dark World, anger, fear, guilt, pride, and sorrow are all passengers on the emotional roller coaster ride various characters must manage. All while the nine realms line up in a ‘convergence’ creating dangerous pockets of time and space. Wreaking havoc upon all.
Idris Elba, Christopher Eccleston in ‘Thor: The Dark World’ Credit: Marvel Studios via ScreenCrush.com
To help stop the Dark Elves, Thor (Hemsworth) requires Loki’s (Hiddleston) help. Even after Thor arrested him for the attack on New York. Hiddleston’s performance is strong, comical at times, and a nice distraction from all the otherwise serious themes running their course.
While Heimdall (Elba) doesn’t have a more important place in this film, the character’s contributions are still significant. He mentions how he can see things few others do, and it gives a sense of how powerful he is as gatekeeper. If a viewer hadn’t figured that already. His conversations with Thor are not a subject with a leader; you can tell there’s a kinship there. A real friendship.
While her role in the Thor films is the smallest, she makes an impressive impact with her screen time—Thor’s mom. Frigga (Russo), Queen of Asgard. Russo is adept at handling herself in action films, and Thor: The Dark World is no exception. Frigga’s use with a blade makes me wonder if she taught Loki more than just magic…
Stellan Skarsgård, Johnathan Howard, Kat Dennings in ‘Thor: The Dark World’ Credit: Marvel Studios via NerdReactor.com
Some well-placed lines and scenes with Darcy (Dennings) are like low-hanging fruit in the way she always says what she’s thinking. Or what everyone else is but won’t actually utter out loud. I like the character as a natural break between tension and humor. Mixing Darcy with Dr. Erik Selvig (Skarsgård) is vital to the plot, their tone vs. the rest of the movie is like peanut butter and jelly.
The pace of the overall movie and the scene transitions are all fine. There is character development here, but the purpose of this film really wasn’t about Thor and company. Marvel needed to use certain aspects to further propel the gigantic story arc that is the first few phases of the MCU.
Costume design for the characters, again, perfectly accentuates each one distinctly and fittingly. To Frigga and Jane’s (Portman) Asgardian attire, to Loki’s classic black and green leather ensemble, Darcy’s hats, or Dr. Selvig’s lack of pants. Um…
Rene Russo, Jamie Alexander, Natalie Portman in ‘Thor: The Dark World’ Credit: Marvel Studios via ScreenCrush.com
The story itself isn’t terrible. It’s like any sequel that needs to slow down to build up more material to work with later. Once you understand it’s not meant to be a fast-paced, sci-fi action film, you’re less likely to be disappointed. It certainly pumps the breaks after Avengers, but it is watchable.
Thor: The Dark World gets knocked around because of how its tone stacks up against the other ‘Thor’ and MCU films. Take it with a grain of salt. This film is eighth in viewing order and is absolutely worth a place on your watchlist if you’re just in it for Thor’s story or the MCU as a whole.
Be advised there are two end scene credits for this movie. Enjoy!
Studio: TriStar Pictures Based on: Book by Chris Van Allsburg
Screenwriter: Jonathan Hensleigh, Greg Taylor, Jim Strain
Cast: Robin Williams, Bonnie Hunt, Kirsten Dunst, Bradley Pierce, David Alan Grier, Bebe Neuwirth, Jonathan Hyde
Jumanji. “For those who seek to find a way to leave their world behind.” This ominous inscription on a magical wooden board game is the introduction to a wonderfully twisted story concept. This isn’t like accidentally finding ones way into a magical wardrobe with another land on the other side while playing hide-and-seek. No, no. Jumanji calls to you, a potential player. With a sound that is as intense as it is ominous. The beating of drums beckons its would-be player into opening it. A sound only the young can hear.
Sony Pictures Trailer for ‘Jumanji’ Credit: Sony via YouTube
The movie starts in 1869 with two boys frantically trying to bury “it,” some item in a bag with inexplicable drum beats. Move forward a century to 1969, to a dig site outside a shoe factory, the drumming is heard again by young Alan Parrish, son of the shoe factory owner. He takes his find home with him. After a schoolmate comes over, he convinces her to play with him.
While they play, the dark and twisted magical tones of the game emerge as they play on. The special effects of 1995 make this part of the film look freaky, still, after all these years. While the results didn’t age well for this film with time, it almost helps it, despite that fact. It instills this disturbing quality that is quintessential to “Jumanji’s” lore. Nevertheless, it causes Alan’s friend, Sarah, to turn tail and run, screaming from the house.
Fast-forward 26-years later.
Bradley Pierce, Bonnie Hunt, Robin Williams, Kirsten Dunst in ‘Jumanji’ Credit: TriStar Pictures via Common Sense Media
Peter (Pierce) and Judy (Dunst) move into Alan’s old house after their aunt (Neuwirth) buys it, intending to turn it into a bed and breakfast. The drums call to them intensely. After they locate the game, they decide to play. Only it’s not their game. It’s the one that was started decades ago. To be plagued by the things from this game for years, or a lifetime, just because you couldn’t find the other player anymore… that’s messed up!
Some of the jungle creatures that emerge while they play are creepy. It’s hard to figure if the filmmakers were using what they had available at the time for such film components or if they wanted it all to look evil-like. There’s a lion that looks like a poorly CGI’ed taxidermy head in a few shots. The vines with man-eating flower pods use and appearance makeup for it. It’s pretty cool.
Then comes a plot twist that introduces ‘the jungle man’ (Williams). With his help, Judy and Peter can stay alive and outwit the hurdles the game is literally throwing out at them. Ideally, to finish the game and be free of it.
‘Jumanji’ still of Yellow flower attack. Credit: TriStar Pictures via EW.com
The performances by the actors are well done for a family film that involves lots of running and screaming. Because of the excellent material, the story’s pace moves flawlessly from one part to the next. The tone of imminent danger and being hunted is counterbalanced wonderfully by the jokes, quips, and Home Alone-like sequences that fit right in. Kids and adults will enjoy it.
Jumanji is an exciting, well-told adventure story crafted (originally) by someone with a dark sense of humor. It’s an excellent film to add to your watchlist for movie night or on a lazy weekend.
Watch List Reviews 