Blog

Film Critic, Movie Blog, Movie Reviews

Avengers (2012)

apenlady

Avengers (2012)

Directed by: Joss Whedon   Runtime: 2 hrs. 25 mins.   Rated: PG-13

Studio: Marvel Studios   Screenwriter: Zak Penn, Joss Whedon

Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Jermey Renner, Mark Ruffalo, Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, Cobie Smulders, Gwyneth Paltrow, Stellan Skarsgård, Clark Gregg

Avengers is the culmination of years of planning and strategic story-telling. Number seven in proper viewing order. It brings together Iron Man (Downey), Captain America (Evans), Thor (Hemsworth), Black Widow (Johansson), Hawkeye (Renner), and Hulk (Ruffalo). Together they work to stop Loki (Hiddleston) and his aspirations of ruling Midgard (Earth). 

Yep, that Loki. And he’s not alone. He’s got an army. Loki’s introduction beyond Asgard was visually impressive! The audience gets to see more character development with him and everyone. 

Trailer for ‘The Avengers’ Credit: Marvel Studios via YouTube.com

The Hulk was recast. The previous one played by Edward Norton came across exceptionally well as a geeky scientist. Other than that, Marvel swapping him out with Mark Ruffalo isn’t a big deal. Still, Marvel uses the Avengers to create a backstory and rationale for Hulk’s quick and seamless participation. 

Hawkeye gets more screen time here than he did in Thor, where the character appeared, briefly. His storyline within the movie mixes with Black Widows. They’ve worked together for years, and the audience gets to see this bond, which feels authentic. Their respective roles always matter more within the ensemble, what they add to the group and why they stick around. They’re the only two without something “extra,” so they are the closest to everyday people. That makes them more relatable. 

In the beginning, they’re a motley crew, but they rally. NYC gets trashed in the process, but it’s not their faults Loki came. 

The Avengers in ‘The Avengers’ Credit: Marvel Studios via Cinemablend.com

The story itself isn’t complicated, nor should it be with a movie like this. It’s designed to be engaging and fun. There’s no prerequisite to see this film if you don’t care about the standalone films before it. No need to have read comics, ever. With these stories, the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s (MCU) ambition is to build upon the one before it. It’s easier to watch an ensemble do something, like saving the world when the audience is invested in the characters. Marvel building up the characters beforehand was an excellent strategy to get the audience invested. 

Books have been made into films for decades. Stories as rich, diverse, complex, and satisfying as Lord of the Ring are masterfully adapted to the screen, but the material only goes so far. Avengers is dozens of stories and connections, their potential- limitless. Why? Because comic books engage multiple-age groups over a wide range of lifestyles and cultures. Comic adaptations, done right, don’t have to end. 

Chitauri in ‘Avengers’ Credit: Marvel Studios via Screenrant.com

The characters are engaging and watchable. The performances by all are convincing, for what the roles asked of them. No one from this franchise will win an Oscar for their acting; the script never allow for that level of depth and range. However, awards should be given for excellent editing, sound editing, CGI, and stunt work. The actors may be the “face” of the film, but the lion’s share of what makes it what it is comes from the handwork and efforts of all the behind-the-scenes magic. 

Avengers is a fun, loud, colorful, action-packed film that’s worth a place on your watchlist. 

—a pen lady

Uncategorized

Ghostbusters (1984)

apenlady

Ghostbusters (1984)

Directed by: Ivan Reitman     Runtime: 1 hr. 45 mins.     Rated: PG

Studio: Columbia Pictures     Screenwriters: Harold Ramis, Dan Aykroyd

Cast: Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Harold Ramis, Rick Moranis, Annie Potts, Sigourney Weaver

There’s no denying when a film’s following endures over the decades, someone did something right. When someone utters the term ‘movie magic,’ you can look to such a film as an example of what that means. Almost four decades after the release of the first film, Ghostbusters is such a movie. 

A supernatural film caters to a particular group of movie-goers, which can make money, sure. What made Ghostbusters such a hit was the notion of the supernatural being blended with comedy. Yet not in an offbeat or cheesy manner. This melding of genres, first and foremost, as successful as it was, is because of excellent story crafting.

Official Trailer for ‘Ghostbusters’ Credit: Columbia Pictures via YouTube.com

I’m a proponent that every film project begins and ends with the story. How well a script is executed in cinema (or television) is the foundation to success. Yes, many other factors can ruin a project, but it starts with the story. Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis birthed the idea of Ghostbusters to the page, and Ivan Reitman ran with it. It was a perfect melding of story and vision coming together. 

Simply put, Ghostbusters is about a group of scientists that go into business for themselves who are the animal catchers of the supernatural. For a price. Some jobs are easy, some are more involved, but when the world’s fate is at stake (with New York City as the epicenter), who ya gonna call? 

Part of the magic of this film is the technical jargon and gadgets used. It doesn’t matter if it makes sense or if scientifically, it’s easily debunked. The way those attributes are utilized makes it seem believable and seamless into the world they belong to. That’s not an easy thing to do, let alone want to watch in a more critical world of films today. That’s as adults. As a child sees it, who wouldn’t want a proton pack? 

‘Ghostbusters’ image from Columbia Pictures via Denofgeek.com

The stunts, special effects, and cinematography are all other components that add to the movie magic within Ghostbusters. Creating the proton streams, Slimer, any of the spooks and specters, and a hundred plus tall marshmallow man add to the story and magic. Crafting the right camera shots and angles really help sell the tone of the film. From wide-angle shots of the city to the close-ups of characters’ reactions to the action, it all works together. 

Ghostbusters is one of those films that is gifted with a memorable musical score, and as a bonus, it has a theme song. I play some of this film’s music on my front porch every Halloween with other music because it’s just so fitting. 

For a movie that is close to four decades old, it’s still funny. Most films will show their age over time with the character’s lines/references, but Ghostbusters doesn’t really suffer from that. The worst that can be said is that it highlights the styles of 1980s America. 

Harold Ramis, Ernie Hudson, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd in ‘Ghostbusters’ via Vanity Fair

The most significant component is cast chemistry. When the casting for each role is bang on, it’s fantastic. When the entire cast meshes well and feeds off of one another’s performances, the project is all the better for it. Winston (Hudson) and Egon’s (Ramis) presence and humor balance out Ray (Aykroyd) and Peter’s (Murray) more eccentric personality attributes. To that end, you have polar opposites in Dana (Weaver) and Janine’s (Potts) characters, but they still have a place that belongs in the film. Even though he’s the odd man out, Louis (Moranis) is this endearing, naive neighbor that gets caught up in the action and adds to the comedy. 

Ghostbusters is a movie that shouldn’t be taken too seriously. It’s meant to be a fun sci-fi/comedy that you enjoy with popcorn that happens to be a well-constructed story with great acting. It absolutely is worth a place on your watchlist! Enjoy. 

—a pen lady

Film Critic, Movie Blog, Movie Reviews

Thor (2011)

apenlady

Thor (2011)

Directed by: Kenneth Branagh   Rated: PG-13   Runtime: 1 hr. 55 mins. 

Studio: Marvel Studios’   Screenwriter: Ashley Miller, Zack Stentz, Don Payne

Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Natalie Portman, Jamie Alexander, Idris Elba, Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo, Stellan Skarsgård, Clark Gregg, Kat Dennings, Ray Stevenson, Tadanobu Asano, Jeremy Renner

Thor is the sixth MCU film in thematic viewing order. The concept of Thor and company is based on an actual myth and once followed belief system. For the most part, Disney hasn’t mutilated Thor to suit its own needs yet. Given that it’s the first, this cleverly created script works to introduce that the myth is, well, real. 

Its fantasy come to life, aided by fantastic-looking costumes and sets working in tandem with the magic of CGI. The grandeur and scale of Asgard are beautiful. I wish it was explored more. 

‘Thor’ Official Trailer via Marvel Studios, YouTube

The stunt work is incredible. Whether Thor (Hemsworth) is beating up SHIELD agents, or Sif (Alexander) is taking on a magically powered sentry. To group fights with giant ice beings, nothing is questionable and disrupts the viewing experience. 

Thor is not perfect; none of the Norse mythological characters are. Okay, Disney/Marvel did change that in this first film, but that’s not a bad thing. For those who think Odin (Hopkins) can only act as Odin and Thor, a selfish, mindless meat sack should go brush up on Norse mythology. This adaptation is diet-Norse, a lower rating of their usual temperaments. Doing this fits in better with Marvel’s overall plans and makes for more compelling characters long run. 

After disobeying his king’s/fathers commands to not do something that would cause war, Thor is cast out from his home on Asgard. He is hurtled to Earth as punishment until he can grow up. Why is it that being sent to Earth by aliens is a punishment?

Tom Hiddleston and Chris Hemsworth in ‘Thor’ CREDIT: ZADE ROSENTHAL/MARVEL/PARAMOUNT/KOBAL/SHUTTERSTOCK via People.com

The message from father to son of ‘there are consequences for actions—even for ‘gods,’ is essential to represent. One, because power should not be left unchecked. Second, superhero’s seemingly walk about doing what they please, often forgetting or believing they are above ramifications. The point helps shape Thor into who he’ll become, even if it’s not what Odin had in mind. 

Even though Thor has his own standalone film to better serve Marvel’s goals of an ensemble team-up, it works. His characters’ world has depth and history, and his own movie was absolutely required. 

The overall pace of the film and scene beats flow with no sagging or hiccups. The cast is a massive part of that. Everyone is phenomenal and perfectly cast. Yes, some don’t get their full due in this film, but it’s a large cast. Certain characters will be fleshed out more later (Renner), and others are just there as supporting members (Dallas, Asano, Stevenson). 

Ray Stevenson, Jamie Alexander, Josh Dallas, Tadanobu Asano in ‘Thor’ Image: Marvel Studios via Mashable.com

Chris Hemsworth makes a visually appealing Thor, but more than that, he delivers his character with the right balance of emotion, force, and charm. He’s not too brutish, cheesy, or mildly simplistic like some animated versions of the character. 

Tom Hiddleston’s Loki is the opposite of Thor. He’s smaller in stature, lean, and lacks any physical prowess. Loki makes up for that with wit, smarts, charm, and a silver tongue. Unlike Thor, Loki was taught magic by his mother, Frigga (Russo), and uses it often. Tom was an unlikely choice for the god of mischief but made the role his own and embraced it. 

Sir Anthony Hopkins has done many roles in his distinguished career, but his casting as Odin is perfection. It’s not a large role, but once you see him as the all-father, it’s difficult to imagine anyone else. The same is true of Idris Elba as Heimdall, the gatekeeper of Asgard. His natural tenor and presence would make most think twice before wanting to deal with him, but in Thor, his golden armored costume only amplifies that. Honestly, it takes an exceptional person to pull off that much gold and fight in it, all while wielding a gigantic sword. 

Stellan Skarsgård, Kat Dennings, Natalie Portman in ‘Thor’ Credit: Marvel Studios via Cinemablend.com

The comradely and established bonds of the characters shine through in such a robust and believable manner with little to no character development. That’s difficult to create and perform, and Thor executes it well. 

Thor is the general publics’ first inclination that they are not alone in the universe. Decades after Captain Marvel came to Earth, briefly and went unnoticed by the public, this is Marvel’s foot in the door to execute its master plans. 

Is Thor a compelling story as other superhero troupes? No. And yet, it’s absolutely worth watching. A good, fun story with a solid cast. For those that don’t like this kind of film, fine. For everyone else, this is worth a place on your watchlist. 

—a pen lady

Film Critic, Movie Blog, Movie Reviews

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

apenlady

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

Directed by: Kevin Reynolds   Rated: PG-13   Runtime: 2 hrs. 35 mins

Studio: Warner Bros.   Screenwriter: Pen Densham, John Watson

Cast: Kevin Costner, Morgan Freeman, Alan Rickman, Christian Slater, Mary Elizabeth 

Mastrantonio, Nick Brimble, Michael McShane

Does every generation deserve a version of Robin Hood? Considering how many have turned out, no. So what’s the allure? Robin Hood is from an English folk story. It’s been retold or made more than the legend of King Arthur or Beowulf. This allure is probably rooted in the fact that Robin Hood sticks up for the little guy, the downtrodden, against an oppressive ruling body. That theme exists in every society today. 

For those unfamiliar with the character, he’s against the local sheriff of Nottingham overtaxing, imprisoning, and killing the people and destroying their homes. Robin steals back the money and returns it to the people. He tries to also protect the kingdom until King Richard can return home. Why? He feels honor-bound to do so, not because someone tasked him with the job. Some people don’t like bullies… I can appreciate that. 

‘Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves’ Official Trailer via Movieclips Classic Trailers via YouTube

While Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves Robin of Locksley (Costner) does end up leading a group of outlaws, he’s little like the original material. Costner’s Robin is not light-hearted, and that departure is at the expense of having him been a crusader. Battling for years can change anyone, but it removes a critical component of the legends persona in this version. To say nothing of Costner’s “English” accent or the rest of the cast. 

The film begins with a dark, violent dungeon scene where body parts are chopped off. Historically this is what happened in certain places of the world as punishment. So it has little to do with an American director being overly violent. 

This introduction sequence is where Robin meets Azeem (Freeman). His character is not from the original tale but is a welcome addition that is utilized well. Morgan Freeman’s natural presence and tenor made him a perfect casting choice for this character. Azeem also balances out Costner’s lackluster performance to Alan Rickman’s sheriff’s outlandish demeanor and quips. No one on this project cared much for historical tone or accuracy to help drive the story. 

Kevin Costner in ‘Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves’ Image: Warner Bros. via The Guardian

While historically, loves was not a factor in match-making, the tale of Robin Hood is centered around his deep love for the Maid Marion (Mastrantonio). In this film, love has nothing to do with it. Costner and Mastrantonio come across more like squabbling siblings who were ordered to get in the mood. There is no buildup of chemistry; they just sort of jump to that at some point to move the film along. This makes the immensely popular Brian Adams song “Everything I Do (I Do It For You)” seem wrong. As for the rest of the music in this film, it’s strong and has a memorable intro score. 

Robin’s band of merry men are mainly nameless, except for a guy named Bull, who references his penis size. Little John (Brimble), whose role is diminished due to Azeem’s addition, Will Scarlet (Slater), and a drunk Friar Tuck (McShane). 

Christian Slater, Morgan Freeman, Nick Brimble in ‘Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves’ Imgae Credit: Warner Bros.

Thinking back thirty years from when I first saw this as a nine-year-old kid, specific memories come to mind. The witch of Nottingham was a creepy-crone (that’s still true), wanting to rewatch this movie just to see Will Scarlet and my moms’ comment about Kevin Costner’s “nice butt.” We all have bizarre things that stick in our minds…

In terms of viewability, there are far worse Robin Hood tales to watch. As a child of the 80s, my first introduction to the character was via Disney’s 1973 animated film, Robin Hood. A fun retelling of Robin and company in animal form. The next was the 1938 film The Adventures of Robin Hood, starring Errol Flynn. It’s the version everything else has failed to emulate for over eight decades. 

This was the early 90s, so the best action sequences still came from explosions and stunt work. The utilization of nature and the trees of the forest help to move the story forward is creative, compelling, and believable. The bow shooting, swordplay, and other action scenes are a nice change of pace from what’s usually showing in theaters. Or streaming nowadays. 

Alan Rickman and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio in ‘Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves’ Credit: Warner Bros. via Deenofgeek.com

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves misses the mark of Robin Hood, the legend. While Alan Rickman was a phenomenal actor, someone should have given him some scope of his character; rather than free rein. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio had nothing to truly work with, except to avoid being raped…while a creepy witch watches. That entire scene is weird, uncomfortable, and anti-climatic. Kevin Costner was too stoic for the role. 

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves is watchable. It’s not bad enough to avoid it altogether. A touch of nostalgia made me again. But, any film I can go longer than a few years, or decades, without watching shouldn’t be on anyone’s watchlist. 

—a pen lady

Film Critic, Movie Blog, Movie Reviews

Iron Man 2 (2010)

apenlady

Iron Man 2 (2010)

Directed by: Jon Favreau   Rated: PG-13   Runtime: 2 hrs. 4 mins. 

Studio: Paramount Pictures/Marvel Studios   Screenwriter: Justin Theroux

Based on: ‘Iron Man’ comic by Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Don Heck, Larry Lieber

Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Micky Rourke, Sam Rockwell, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jon Favreau, Samuel L. Jackson, Don Cheadle, Paul Bettany, Scarlet Johansson, Greg Clark, 

Iron Man 2 picks up six months from where the first one left off. Here Tony (Downey) must deal with the downside to coming out as Iron Man. His company, health, and reputation are suffering, and through all that, some heavy choices and discoveries happen. 

Marvel Studios’ and Paramount Pictures ‘Iron Man 2’ Trailer 2 via YouTube.com

The main question that’s asked, ‘is the Iron Man suit a weapon?’ If so, should it just be handed over to the government? This question is one of the main conflicts. The idea/fear is that not just anyone should build such a device; just because they can. That’s logical from a legal perspective; people can’t make explosives at home and use them. Or a nuke, if one was resourceful and intelligent enough. For Tony, it’s more-it’s also keeping him alive, so he argues. And yet, it’s the device in his chest that does that, not the suit. Still, it’s proprietary. He created it. Tony’s grandstanding and ego aside. 

Mix the above with the lifetime grudge Ivan Vanko (Rourke) has for the Stark family, and the story begins to take shape. On his own, Ivan’s character and mission could never hold up as a plot. However, when Justin Hammer (Rockwell) joins the party, things fall into place. Yeah, Hammer is like that guy that shows up and tries to fit in but never quite does. Still, his desperate efforts and use of Ivan’s hatred tie in effortlessly with the government’s issues with Tony Stark as Iron Man. The merging of the subplots is clean, logical, and drives the story forward. 

Samuel L. Jackson and Robert Downey Jr. in ‘Iron Man 2′ Image Credit: Marvel Studios’ and Paramount Pictures via Screengeek.com

Iron Man and many of the components of the film also move forward seamlessly because of the CGI. The costumes, flying, explosions, race sequence, and fight scenes all add to the film but don’t overpower it. It’s balanced. 

Agent Coulson (Clark), Happy Hogan (Favreau), and the voice of JARVIS (Bettany) all return for their respective roles. Other new additions are Nick Fury (Jackson), Natasha Romanoff (Johansson), and Lt. Col. Rhodes was recast with Don Cheadle. Everyone has more of a role in this film, and they execute their characters very well. It’s always nice to see character growth (development) with established characters. 

Rourke’s performance is forgettable, but his character is meant to be. Ivan’s merely a plot device to further Tony’s journey and nothing more. 

Hammer has always been a cast-off, a joke in the comics. Hammer tech is the two-star rated company you settle for because the best-rated ones are out of stock/back-ordered, and you can’t wait. Sam Rockwell really does a suburb job of bringing his character from page to screen. 

Sam Rockwell and Mickey Rourke in ‘Iron Man 2′ Image Credit: Marvel Studios’ and Paramount Pictures via Gamerant.com

A real treat is watching Natasha Romanoff (Johansson) bust some ass-kicking moves on a group of security personnel. In this film, the audience gets a glimpse that theres’ more to her than she lets on. Her character is instantly one you want to see more of. 

RDJ continues to shape the character of Tony Stark/Iron Man in a performance that never disappoints. 

Iron Man 2 is a good sequel and is a staging ground for many stories and characters to come. The film is worth a place on your watchlist for a fun watch with a good story and engaging characters. Be sure to stick around for the end credit scenes. 

—a pen lady

Film Critic, Movie Blog, Movie Reviews

A Quiet Place 2 (2021)

apenlady

A Quiet Place 2 (2021)

Directed by: Jon Krasinski   Rated: PG-13   Runtime: 1 hr. 37 mins.

Studio: Paramount Pictures and Platinum Dunes

Screenwriter: Jon Krasinski, Scott Beck, Bryan Woods

Cast: Jon Krasinski, Emily Blunt, Cillian Murphy, Millicent Simmonds, Noah Jupe, Djimon Hounsou

I take care not to put out spoilers that ruin a movie in my reviews/posts. To dance around them when reviewing franchise films, where one builds upon another. Though, strictly speaking, they’re not sequels. A Quiet Place 2 is very much a traditional sequel. To talk about it will mean referencing its predecessor a little. There may be baby-sized spoilers, but nothing major. Therefore, don’t read this until you’ve seen the first one. 

Paramount Pictures final trailer for ‘A Quiet Place 2’ via YouTube.com

A Quiet Place 2 is not one of those sequels that’s a letdown. Sure, some of the mystery is gone now that audiences understand the alien’s trigger. That doesn’t equate to a lack of suspense and thrills. I couldn’t remember the last time I jumped in my seat seeing a movie, and for this one, it happened twice. 

The film picks up right where the first left off. In a flashback/memory, the audience gets to experience the day the aliens came. Yes, it shows multiple perspectives and not just the person having the flashback; it’s forgivable. Move on. It’s effortlessly shown and seamlessly goes right back to the movie’s present. By adding this, viewers see the connections with other townspeople the Abbott family knew. This is nice because there is no need to explain who someone is later on. Case in point, Emmett (Murphy). 

Emmett and Regan (Simmonds) are the genuine leads of the film. Evelyn (Blunt) and Marcus (Jupe) have sizable chunks, but someone has to keep an eye on baby Abbott. With the family farm in ruins, a safe and sound-proof space is crucial with a newborn in tow. 

Noah Jupe, Emily Blunt, Millicent Simmonds in ‘A Quiet Place 2’ Image Credit: Paramout Pictures via Screenrant.com

Everyone’s acting is on point, to a level that questions how. How did Krasinski get such real-life-like emotional reactions? When Noah Jupe’s Marcus screams and panics (which is all he seems to do), did he have a coach? Or Emily Blunt’s resolve as Evelyn to carry around that crate and baby on an injured foot is pure grit. Grit is not a term I would use to describe Emily Blunt typically. The natural-seeming reactions of Millicent Simmonds’s Regan are also amazing to see depicted, as she is deaf in real life too. All of it adds to the believability and suspense as you watch these characters struggle to survive. 

Let’s talk feet for a moment. Evelyn walks around barefoot as the Abbott’s have elected to do, with a wound and dirty bandage. Ow and yuck! On top of that, they must now walk beyond the soft sandy paths they established near home. I’m barefoot most of the time, so my feet are used to a certain degree of abuse. However, walking on and running through the places the characters do without issue isn’t believable. Maybe if they were as light-footed as the elf, Legolas, from Lord of the Ring. 

Krasinski doesn’t expand on the aliens in any way, which will bug some viewers who expect answers and details. In this, A Quiet Place 2’s alien foe is like the concept of the zombies in AMC’s The Walking Dead. There is no ‘why,’ only how to survive around them. A bleak notion, to be sure!

Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Djimon Hounson, Millicent Simmonds in ‘A Quiet Place 2’ Imgae Credit: Paramount Pictures via Screenrant.com

A Quiet Place 2 isn’t short on action and suspense. The film may have more dialogue, but it still invokes the same need for audience participation with being silent. With excellent sound editing and solid performances by the cast, the story holds up well against its predecessor. Seeing the first film, and this one is like being enveloped into a great book. When it’s over, you still want more. That’s a sign of excellent storytelling. 

If you are a fan of action, suspense, and drama with a fantastic cast and great story, A Quiet Place 2 should make it on to a high place on your watch list. 

—a pen lady

6-25-21

*Currently, you can only see this film in theaters. If it’s safe for you to see and you can see it in theaters before its home release, see it on the big screen. Some films are always better viewed on a gigantic screen, in the dark, with a superior sound system. This is one of those films. Cheers! 

Film Critic, Movie Blog, Movie Reviews

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

apenlady

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

Directed by: Louis Leterrier   Rated: PG-13   Runtime: 1 hrs. 52 mins. 

Studio: Universal Pictures/Marvel Studios   Screenwriter: Zak Penn

Cast: Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, William Hurt, Tim Roth

Explosions. Car throwing. Jumping from choppers without a shoot. Destroying a part of New York. Mass destruction and collateral damage. People running and screaming in the streets. Yep, it must be a Marvel movie!

The Incredible Hulk is the fifth MCU film if you’re watching in logical viewing order. And the second film, in general, to be released. This film starts with snippets of images to convey information and actions to progress the story while the intro credits run. It spends zero time showing you how Bruce Banner (Norton) ends up as ‘The Hulk,’ and it’s better for it. There are plenty of other places in the film that show and tell what gamma radiation/poisoning is and what it does. These snippets are gritty, bloody, and convey a heavy scientific and militaristic tone. This film predates Disney’s acquisition of Marvel. 

Marvel Studios and Universal Pictures Officail Trailer for ‘The Incredible Hulk’ via YouTube

Even for a Marvel film, The Incredible Hulk has a darker, more sinister feel to it. While there is plenty of violence in any of the MCU films to date, this movie has the unfortunate use of humans and regular weapons. These two factors set it apart from the other MCU characters and their stories because there are no aliens or futuristic technology to act as a visual boundary. The Hulk and his foe aside. 

Bruce Banner is a scientist who has an accident in a laboratory experiment, which results in him morphing into a gigantic, green mutation known as the Hulk. When he’s calm, he turns back into Bruce. General Ross (Hurt) always wanted to use Banner’s work and weaponize it. When Banner changed, General Ross felt Bruce was government property to be experimented on and exploited. So, Bruce fled. One of Bruce’s scientific collaborators was Dr. Betty Ross (Tyler), Bruces’s love interest and General Ross’s daughter. 

Liv Tyler and William Hurt in Marvel Studios ‘The Incredible Hulk’ Imgae Credit: Marvel Studios/Universal Pictures via Geekfeed.com

General Ross seeks out where Bruce is hiding for years. Given the plot so far, it wouldn’t be much of a story if the general didn’t locate him at some point. At this junction, the general enlists the help of Emil Blonsky (Roth) to help track and capture Banner. After seeing the Hulk up close, Blonsky wants to be like the Hulk and works towards that goal. Because of this choice, Blonsky ends up the primary foe of the film over General Ross. 

The premise overall isn’t flawed; it’s acted well by everyone. Yet…the pace is what trips this film up. It transitions well from scene to scene so that the audience understands the flow of time and such. The problem is the movie relies too much on its action sequences and explosions. Some of which are genuinely unbelievable (that’s not a compliment). Without them, the story would flop around like a fish out of water. There is lots of destruction and violence with an origin story like the Hulks or most stories about him. It’s difficult to tell such an origin story without it. And that’s the root of the problem. The Hulk shouldn’t have his own standalone film. It’s simple enough to convey in other ways and should have been. 

Tim Roth in ‘The Incredible Hulk’ Image Credit: Marvel Studios/Universal Pictures via Screenrant.com

This film does show the Hulk doing his ground stomp, makes boxing gloves from cars, performing a thunderclap, and yelling his iconic catchphrase. All these things are utilized and absolutely belong. It’s not enough to make this film stand out. Its failure to captivate is in the limited complexity or nuances that Bruce/Hulk has as an origin story. It’s pretty cut and dry. 

While the events depicted in this film are referenced later in the MCU, General Ross (Hurt) is the only actor to ever be seen again. The others are never shown or are recast altogether. There are nods to S.H.I.E.L.D.’s existence in the movie. Still, they come across as confusing afterthoughts that are meaningless in this film. To that end, the only real thing that connects this film to the MCU is in the last minute of the film, where Tony Stark makes an appearance. If it were not for that, this film couldn’t even be considered a part of the MCU. 

Edward Norton in ‘The Incredible Hulk’ Image Credit: Marvel Studios/Universal Pictures via CBR.com

More than enough comments happen in future films, allowing the audience to understand the Hulk/Bruce Banner’s situation. It’s because of this fact that this movie is totally one you could skip seeing. Keep this off your watchlist and move on to whatever’s next on your list. 

*There is no end credit scenes for this film

—a pen lady

Film Critic, Movie Blog, Movie Reviews

Cruella (2021)

apenlady

Cruella (2021)

Directed by: Craig Gillespie   Runtime: 2 hr 14 min   Rated: PG-13

Studio: Disney   Screenwriters: Dana Fox, Tony McNamara, Aline Brosh McKenna

Based on: Novel One Hundred and One Dalmatians by Dodie Smith

Cast: Emma Stone, Emma Thompson, Joel Fry, Paul Walter Hauser, Mark Strong

Once upon a time, there was a land where the first Walt-Disney movies were created. Where women fell in love at first sight or continually needed rescuing by a man. Where magic was mostly evil, and villains were bad, no reason why. 

Eventually, after many, many, many years, the rulers of this land changed and remodeled the great castle of the land. This land came to be known simply as Disney. Women were no longer plot devices forced into marriages, kidnapped, poisoned, or cursed. A place where all magic isn’t evil and women are empowered. Classic stories are reimagined here, and so are the villains. Now, they, too, have backstories, depth. 

Disney’s Cruella Official Trailer via YouTube

Disney’s latest reinvention is the villain from the 1961 cartoon movie One Hundred and One Dalmatians, Cruella DeVil. Initially, she was an animated, chain-smoking, anorexic, verbally abusive, fur-wearing, puppy stealing, murderous maniac. Yes, the original cartoon was a children’s movie. There was a live-action film of the same name in the mid-90s… absolutely worth avoiding. 

So, how do you redeem such a vile creation? You split her traits into two people and go from there. 

Cruella isn’t about chasing down dogs, far from it. Though a handful is in the film, that part of the original has been stripped away. This retelling is sassy, edgy, and a tad dark. It was made with more mature audiences in mind. 

Emma Stone and Emma Thompson in Disney’s ‘Cruella’ Image Credit: Disney

Emma Stone plays the iconic, titular role of Cruella. The audience is introduced to her as a child, briefly. That peek into her past sets up her motivations and the overall tone of the film to come. Cruella is a nickname; her real name is Estella. Estella tries to stuff a part of herself (Cruella) away into a metaphorical box. It’s evident from the film’s title that it doesn’t work out. It’s why that doesn’t work that makes for a compelling journey into this character. 

Cruella’s depiction by Stone is absolutely believable. Her natural ability to exude snark while acting a tad mad and delivering salty lines, all while seemingly enjoying herself, is bang on. It reflects the original in a way that isn’t based on all the previous character flaws. Stone’s Cruella laugh is even on point. 

All Estella wants is to work in fashion, to design. With the help of her friends Horace (Hauser) and Jasper (Fry), she finds an in. She catches the attention of fashion legend, The Baroness (Thompson). Dreams do sometimes come true! Or, maybe not. Emma Thompson artfully depicts herself as the “it” lady of London. She makes Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep) from The Devil Wears Prada look like a street performer. In fact, both Emma’s feed off one another so well in their shared scenes it’s difficult to determine who is better. 

Paul Walter Hauser, Emma Stone, & Joel Fry in ‘Cruella’ Image Credit: Disney

The pace of the film is relatively good. Unfortunately, it gets bogged down about seventy-five percent of the way through, but it’s not for long before it picks up again. 

This film establishes who Cruella is and why. From there, Disney sets up what she could become in a sequel or two. They could choose to keep her “brilliant, bad, and a little mad” (as a tagline goes), letting her embrace villainy. Or something else. Honestly, Emma Stone’s performance is too fabulous to go good. This Cruella doesn’t need to be on the same path as the animated one to wreak havoc. Nor should she. By remodeling this character, it ensures her original toxic demeanor and subliminal approval of killing animals for sport is never again seen as acceptable. 

Cruella tells a story that’s not a remake and is better for it. 

This film is absolutely worth putting on your watchlist and seeing in theaters. 

—a pen lady