Phil Returns to the Movies 2021
The theaters are back open.
List activity
205 views
• 0 this weekCreate a new list
List your movie, TV & celebrity picks.
28 titles
- DirectorGuy RitchieStarsJason StathamHolt McCallanyJosh HartnettA mysteriously stoic character is hired as a security guard by a cash truck company responsible for transporting a lot of money around Los Angeles each week.Released: May 7th, 2021
Viewed: May 13th, 2021
Before I saw this film, the only exposure I had of Jason Statham was the Meg (2018) and the Expendables (2010-2014), films. Along with that, I thoroughly enjoyed the two Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes (2009 & 2011), movies and I totally respect Ritchie's style seen in some of his classics, like Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels (1998). Hey, that's a Jason Statham movie too! I saw that one too! In the case of Wrath of Man (2021), it too had a lot of that style in it as well, to a point.
This film is a remake of a French film called Le Convoyeur (Cash Truck - 2004). Basically, this is a revenge film revolving around the world of armored car heists. The plot of the film takes a "Great Escape" approach to its storytelling, albeit with armored car thefts as opposed to breaking out of a Nazi prison camp. It meticulously gives the story extra details, such as how the crimes are committed, how much time they have, etc. They even schedule out time for heist training and how they will carry out the whole thing. That was the cool stuff in the film. It starts to fall apart from there.
Jason Statham plays a guy seeking revenge for the loss of a loved one during a heist on the street. This is where the problems start to occur in the film. You don't really care about any of the characters in this film. None of them are really likable, even Statham himself. You do not feel any pity for his character, because most of the tragedy that launches this story is his own fault. He wanders around looking all brooding and boring, totally giving away his intentions at the start of the film.
There is a good supporting cast in this film, but the characters portrayed are not really worth getting behind. Even Andy Garcia's character, Agent King, makes no sense even being in the movie. He just comes across as being a sniveling weasel and pops in and out at advantageous times. You really don't feel bad for the female characters in the film either. A lot of unlikeable characters propagate this film.
Speaking of Ritchie's style, one thing was bothering me. Ritchie had moments where he kept breaking the fourth wall and I am not sure if they even noticed it. When a character opens a car door to enter the car, the camera backs up so the actor can get in the car. The camera then zooms back in closer as he has a conversation with the driver. To me that was not a good move, because you basically are telling the audience, "we had to move the camera back so the guy can get in the car". The point is not to show that the camera is in the way of the guy getting in the car. This is a movie, not a reality TV show. There are no cameras in this parking garage.
It was things like that and an uneven pace to the story that was making it hard to enjoy. There were too many flashbacks and flash-forwards. It felt like, "three weeks ago" or "four months ago" or "two weeks later", was happening way too often. The film spent too much time going from extremes to quiet moments, from one location to the next with not much of a warning. As the film would get going the pace would come to a halt. I did catch myself yawning a couple times. I still feel that a 6 IMDB is still a good enough movie to still go see, but maybe wait for a $5 Tuesday night showing.
5.9 (D MyGrade) = 6 IMDB - DirectorDarren Lynn BousmanStarsChris RockSamuel L. JacksonMax MinghellaA criminal mastermind unleashes a twisted form of justice in Spiral, the terrifying new chapter from the book of Saw.Released: May 14th, 2021
Viewed: May 19th, 2021
Horror films these days have become something other than horror films. We have pushed the envelope so far on the serious violence subject that the movies themselves aren't really scary anymore, just kinda' gross. Because of TV shows like CSI (2000 - 2015), the Walking Dead (2010 - Present), the age of streaming services making it easier for access to R rated content and changing attitudes on violence in movies/TV shows, we have come to a point where we have seen everything. I mean really, how many different ways can you mutilate the human body? Plus, knowing that it is fake (not criticizing the effects in some of these films), and with all that Hollywood magic thrown in, also makes it easier not to be scared.
We have come to a point where horror films need other angles to make them appealing today. So, for me, my angle was concentrating on the very interesting idea of seeing Chris Rock and Samuel L. Jackson being serious in a slasher/gore film. Of course, Samuel L. has done plenty of serious work, but it was the idea of Chris Rock taking on a serious role, that I've never seen before. The closest, serious, dramatic role I've ever seen him in was probably, Lethal Weapon IV (1998). What is even more intriguing is the fact that Rock plays Jackson's son in this film.
Rock plays Police Detective Zeke Banks, who's father once was a legendary Police Captain, who was busy hunting down Jigsaw during the old Saw days. On the day Banks gets a new partner (Max Minghella), fellow detectives of Bank's start disappearing and falling prey to a new copycat killer named Spiral. A pretty basic plot, but it does deliver a few surprises and turns.
What it didn't do was scare me. I didn't flinch at all and this film had plenty of the cheap, flashed, jump-cuts for fright purposes and those weren't working either. As I said earlier, horror films are not scary anymore, just cartoonishly gross and silly. I am not criticizing the effects in this film, because they are good and convincing when looking at them from a creative and designed point of view. When it comes to frights, this one needed to use it's next best cards to make this film enjoyable.
That card falls to the performances of Chris Rock and his supporting cast, who all do a pretty good, convincing job. In the case of Rock, it's almost weird watching him do a serious Chris Rock, but with a gritty edge that was very cool, fresh and likeable. He wanted to tell us that there was no time for comedy, only serious stuff. Samuel L. Jackson does what he does well. He executes the qualities and attributes of his character needed to sell it to an audience, And, he does it without over-doing it. What makes him so good is his ability to simplify the issue, because an energetic, amplified personality like him could fall prey to over-acting, but Jackson gets the job done again.
The rest of the cast is a cast of virtual unknowns, who do a good job, but deflate some of the energy in the room being generated by Rock and Jackson. The next biggest cast member after Minghella, is Marisol Nichols, who plays the current Police Captain. She manages to feed on the emotions of the audience. It was her character that helped generate the second guessing of where this story ends up.
Go into this movie looking for suspense, a good murder mystery, fresh performances and a psychological thriller. Try and take the gore as flashy make-up effects and try to remember its all fake, so it doesn't ruin the rest of the film for you. I still consider a film with a 6 IMDB a good film and worth seeing, but I'd save your money and go to $5 Tuesday night instead of the regular theater price. I will say this though, Chris Rock was pretty good. I like his serious side.
6.1 (D+ Mygrade) = 6 IMDB - DirectorTaylor SheridanStarsAngelina JolieNicholas HoultFinn LittleA teenage murder witness finds himself pursued by twin assassins in the Montana wilderness with a survival expert tasked with protecting him -- and a forest fire threatening to consume them all.Released: May 14th, 2021
Viewed: May 21st, 2021
When it comes to dealing with two different plot lines, those plot lines don't always come together. In the case of this film, one plot unfolds involving a young kid, who has valuable legal information that can put away a lot of bad people in the government. After an attack on him and his father and escaping from the bad guys, he runs into Angelina Jolie, who is a forest fire ranger and expert survivalist, in the middle of nowhere, thus plot number two unfolds.
Hannah (Jolie), is on tower watch and Conner (Finn Little), our kid on the run, following instructions from his father, follows the creek and eventually runs into Jolie at the tower. As you would know it, the bad guys set a fire at a rest stop in order to draw the town's attention away from them and their job of killing the kid and any other witnesses. Thus brings in, at no surprise, the whole forest fire angle of this film.
What comes after that is a dull, average, action film that works better on a network crime show. Which, is an interesting notion, because the film was also released on HBO Max at the same time it was released in theaters and the theater I was in was the size of a gift shop. It fits that. But, things are not terrible for this film. On it's base level it is just fine. It is polished just like anything else with 21st century film/digital technology. That is it though. It has just an average appeal and pace to it.
The characters are basic and it's a shame too, because with a seasoned, popular supporting cast like, John Bernthal, Nicholas Hoult and Game of Thrones alumni, Aidan Gillen this could have been something. John Bernthal was the stand-out actor. Everything you liked about him from Walking Dead (2010 - Present), to the Punisher (2017), is here too. One of the surprise characters, that I wasn't expecting, was Medina Senghore as Allison, Bernthal's Sheriff Ethan's pregnant wife, who ends up being the character you most want to root for. She is a breakout character and fits nicely in with Bernthal's stand-out sheriff.
I was questioning the believability factor when it came to some of the scenes in the fire and with a lightning storm, but they sell it enough, that it provides that modern age cheesiness found in films like this. If you take away the 21st century special effects however, then any twelve episodes of Chips are better than this is. This may have been just an extra vehicle for Jolie to ride with to help jack up interest for her, before her MCU debut happens in the Eternals (2021), coming out later in the year.
Its not a horrible film. Not by a long shot. The pace of the plot is boring and it takes awhile for things to get going. I am still going to give it an E for Effort, which means, I still recommend seeing it. It still provides the escapism that Hollywood provides and even though it has a slow build-up and pace it still has enough interesting things going on that makes it fine for an hour and a half. Save your money and watch this movie on HBO Max. I do hope you have a huge TV though.
5.2 (E+ MyGrade) = 5 IMDB - DirectorJohn KrasinskiStarsEmily BluntMillicent SimmondsCillian MurphyFollowing the events at home, the Abbott family now face the terrors of the outside world. Forced to venture into the unknown, they realize the creatures that hunt by sound are not the only threats lurking beyond the sand path.Released: May 28th, 2021
Viewed: May 29th, 2021
The subject of the modern day horror movie came up recently, when I went and saw Spiral (2021). The idea that horror movies aren't really scary anymore, was weighing in on me. We have pushed the violence envelope to the limit, when trying to scare the audience. We've seen everything you can do with violence and gore. The films end up not being scary anymore, just kind of, gross. The original Halloween (1978), was scary and believe it or not, barely had a drop of blood in it. But, maybe it's just R-rated horror films that have run into this content problem.
I took this idea even further when I saw the first, A Quiet Place (2018), film, about five days ago and that is when it struck me. Maybe horror movies have to reinvent the wheel and go back to the basics. What made a more tense, suspenseful and jarring film was the one that wasn't concentrating on what you could see, but what you couldn't. It was holding back and not showing everything that needs to be seen. I still believe that audiences in 1931 were more scared watching Frankenstein (1931), than the audience who saw Spiral (2021). By the way, I am not bashing Spiral (2021). There are parts of that movie that I really enjoyed. Just not the silly, cartoonish-looking, overdone, overused, gore parts. They aren't scary. Maybe dial it back a little and go PG-13. It seems to be working with A Quiet Place (2018) and the sequel is no different.
This one picks up from where the last one does, albeit with a flashback to launch things off. Our heroic mother, Evelyn (Emily Blunt), and the two kids, Regan and Marcus have moved on with the baby in a box. They follow the train tracks and eventually come to a factory that houses an old friend from the good old days. What we all know needs to happen and does when Regan realizes her father's signal can be used on a radio station, which could really stir things up for the invading, what-ever-the-hell those things are.
What makes these films work and this one particularly, is the idea of the silence. It is Krasinski using old school film techniques to tell a story. In this case, I have been watching a lot of old silent movies lately and that kept coming into my mind, while watching this film. Those moments of silence tell a lot of the story and are the most scary moments. The vulnerability of Regan, being deaf and having to make no noise, but you know they are there. It's not your fear you are feeling, but hers.
There also is the case of the creatures. They too are presented in a classic film style. Not too much. Not too little. It harkens me back to the old Aliens movies of the 1980s, all the way up to the monster in Super-8 (2011). They are frightening, effective, but still used in the shadows and revealed sometimes only by the noises they make. It's a film audio engineer's dream.
Don't get me wrong. You see the monsters a lot, but the use of them isn't in your face. There is a subtleness that makes the scare quotient go up. This film is just as good as the first one. It could be a hair better if it wasn't for the loss of John Krasinski. His character was missing, but maybe it's safe to say that the first movie belonged to his character and the mantle is passed on to another in this movie. All I really know is, at this moment in time, the PG-13 horror movie is becoming better than the R rated ones.
8.6 (B+ MyGrade) = 8 IMDB - DirectorMichael ChavesStarsPatrick WilsonVera FarmigaRuairi O'ConnorArne Cheyenne Johnson stabs and murders his landlord, claiming to be under demonic possession while Ed and Lorraine Warren investigate the case and try to prove his innocence.Released: June 4th, 2021
Viewed: June 11th, 2021
In the case of the Conjuring films (2013-2016), all of them have been reasonably good. There might be a couple moments of drag, in the pace of the first two films, maybe a miscue or two with the acting, but very minor stuff. They are not knock-down, great, but they are polished, classic, Hollywood inspired, pieces of work, that get the job done in the modern day of film-making. Director James Wan and crew did accomplish what they wanted to in the first two films. So, in this third one, Director Michael Chaves has to take on the dreaded third film (the one that always plagues franchises, the dreaded third film), try to be as fresh as possible and to tell audiences that this train still has a lot of story to tell. They almost get to the measuring stick, set by the first two films, but fall a hair short. What I mean by that is, they still keep the train going with minor imperfections. It is not as bad as it sounds, because the film does have a lot to offer towards the franchise as a whole.
First off, what makes this one shine, in parts, is what made the first two films as good as they were. That would be the chemistry and professional accuracy of the two main characters. The Mr. & Mrs. Smith of the demon hunters movie club. Ed and Lorraine Warren, played brilliantly by Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga. Yes, I think they were born for these roles. They totally capture the essence of what their characters are all about. They also do emanate their characters' feelings for each other and it comes off the screen to you. You believe the relationship.
What also made this film interesting to watch, was the slight change of gears they made in Chaves' attempt to keep things fresh. As you know from the first two movies, the Warrens answer the calls from people, who are being terrorized by evil spirits in their homes. The spirits have become demons, due to some kind of issue with limbo or something and they try to possess someone in the world of the living. The Warrens come in to exorcise the demon from the person possessed. The staple in the plots though for the first two films was the idea that the threat was coming from a being of paranormal design. A being that isn't actually a being, not tangible really, but a person already dead and gone, just stuck. That brings us to that change that Chaves and the writers infused into this film's script.
What they decide to do is introduce the idea of the Occultist and the concept of being cursed by someone, which is still just as effective and chilling as the first two movies. Being possessed by a demon looked just as ugly as being cursed. It also adds a more tangible, more believable monster, because it is actually inhabiting the real world. It felt different knowing that Ed and Lorraine were in danger with the paranormal, as well as, the normal.
This film also tackles the idea of how the real world reacts to this kind of world. Ed and Lorraine are real people, doing a job, most people don't think is a thing. So, if something legal pops up they are scrutinized to the end. This is evident when they go to help a detective with a murder case and of course, he is tough to convince, that they are genuine. The film also shows us another plot arc of what happens if these concepts come up in a court of law. Ed and Lorraine also have to race against time to bring in evidence to prove that their client committed murder by reason of demonic possession. It is based off of their real world experience of being at the first ever court case that involved using demonic possession as a defense.
It is the surrounding cast of characters that hurt the film slightly though. With all that is going on in this film (and there is a lot), dealing with the other characters may have been too much and they seemed to lack some depth. A lot of them seemed to pop in and out just to move things along. They were more like a tour guide than a person you should care about in this story. But, that is it. The film is still a nice addition to the trilogy. This film also spends a lot less time inside the house and actually takes us to different settings other than the haunted house set pieces. Relax, there still is some house in this one.
7.5 (C+ MyGrade) = 7 IMDB - DirectorPatrick HughesStarsRyan ReynoldsSamuel L. JacksonSalma HayekThe bodyguard, Michael Bryce, continues his friendship with assassin, Darius Kincaid, as they try to save Darius' wife Sonia.Released: June 16th, 2021
Viewed: June 21st, 2021
The surprise hit of 2017 was the Hitman's Bodyguard (2017). The movie only cost 30 million dollars and made over double that in the States. Double that total, plus a little more and you get the worldwide take, so, the movie made a lot of money and that is why we are here now. It is a formula that has been seen before, involving huge stars, huge stunts, comedy and action. The tried and true buddy comedy formula, in the first film, involved a convergence with Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L. Jackson. It was a hit and didn't anger the critics much. So, now we have the sequel.
In addition to Reynolds and Jackson is Salma Hayek, who plays Jackson's, Darius Kincaid's, heavily charged wife, Sonia. This film brings her character to the center stage (considering her character was used, in some ways, in a wasted way, sitting in a jail the whole first movie, talking on the phone a lot. This is not including a great flashback sequence explaining how they met), because it looks like she is out of jail for this film. As was seen in the first film, Jackson's seasoned hitman has angered many criminal organizations and again he is in danger after being kidnapped by another group, who wants him dead. Enter Reynolds', Michael Bryce, the triple graded bodyguard, turned broken man, who has finally conquered his demons after many lengthy psychiatrist appointments and found a place to rest, until Sonia finds him. She comes enlisting his aid to search for his old, kidnapped buddy, Kincaid.
What this film tried to do was correct the flaws, that the first film had, but created it's own flaws, making this film no worse of better than the last film. They are fairly close in quality with each other. One of the flaws this film fixed from the first film came from the runtime. This film was 15-20 minutes shorter, which was nice. The first film was a little bit too long, which effected its pacing. It rolled up and down, from action to non-action and from comedy to crime. It had a problem identifying itself as either a comedy, action film or something else. The pacing lost its way, to the point, that we kept forgetting about Gary Oldman's bad guy character, because he would pop up out of nowhere, just sniveling, lying and crying. He would be another wasted character in that film. The runtime of this film helps contain everything in a much better, tighter, compact package.
Along they way, the three of them become embroiled in a terrorist-type plot to destroy Europe, led by new bad guy, Aristotle Papdopolous, played effectively by Antonio Banderas. We also meet Bryce's father, who was hailed as the greatest bodyguard ever, but never appreciated Bryce himself. You'll have to figure it out on your own, who the actor is, who plays Bryce's father. It's kind of a spoiler, so I'm not mentioning it here.
Another flaw they corrected in this film was the character building. The pacing that this film establishes from the start helps the plot explain the characters backgrounds better. We learn a lot more about Kincaid and Sonia. We learn a lot more about Bryce's backstory. It makes these characters more tangible and you understand more about why they are the way they are. So, by putting a better human face on the characters, it allows you to cheer them on more.
Compared to Gary Oldman's bad guy in the first film, Antonio Banderas' Aristotle character has a much better, fleshed out, personality, that we can understand. He has a reason why he is doing what he is doing. He has a background that explains a lot more and the emotions released by his character are more grounded and not teetering to one side too much. He also has a closer connection to our anti-heroes, which drives the plot ahead. Samuel L. Jackson does what he does well and his contrast to Hayek, although, kind-of, unbelievable, still works well in this film.
Unbelievability is a necessary evil that you have to accept in these films to enjoy them. Case in point, Reynolds and his Bryce character. This man gets hit by so many cars in these movies and gets up with only scratches. By the time you are done with this film, you eventually accept this unbelievable character ability as one of his character's attributes. It's part of his persona in this film's universe. It's part of the comedy relief of this film. What I liked about his performance in the first film carried over into this film. A lot of Reynold's recent performances have been high energy, over-the-top renditions. I do not bring that fact up as a negative though, especially the Deadpool movies, but in the case of these films, it was nice seeing a more subdued, lower-energy Reynolds. By bringing his broken bodyguard's energy down, it helped emphasize the frailty and childness of Bryce's character. It also helped make some of the unbelievable comedy moments, that his character was involved in, easier to consume and more humorous.
What hurts this film, is the action to comedy ratio. This one felt like it wanted to be funnier then the last one. It was relying a little too much on the silliness. This is more evident by the reduction in action sequences in favor of bad humor or silly reaction shots. I was really surprised to see that the budget for this film was twice as big as the last one, because on the surface this film looked like the budget was cut. Maybe the flash and fireworks was cut back for actor's salaries? Maybe Covid protocols played a part in it? I have no idea what would be the reason why this film looks cheaper than the last one.
So, each film has their issues and their strengths. Despite the flaws, these films still deliver well enough to be entertaining and to be seen. You could piggy-back them together into one huge film and this film is a nice, compact, shorter, piece of work, that can be clipped to the end of the first one. In the case of this film, it delivers better pacing, an easier plot to follow and characters you can understand better, but by sacrificing some of the good attributes found in the first film, they manage to create some moments of silly boredom, compounded by not as many laughs. Still, not bad.
7.1 (C MyGrade) = 7 IMDB - DirectorTy RobertsStarsLuke WilsonVinessa ShawWayne KnightHaunted by his mysterious past, a devoted high-school football coach leads a scrawny team of orphans to the state championship during the Great Depression and inspires a broken nation along the way.Released: June 11th, 2021
Viewed: June 24th, 2021
This film is one those types of biopic/docudramas that tries not to dazzle you with flash-in-the-pan excitement or huge megastars. It is one of those meticulously pieced-together retellings of something that happened from our past. It is based on true events. This particular one centers on a historic sports theme. We are introduced to the 1930s and the horrible after effects of the great depression and the dust bowl. The film takes place in 1938, which means, we also know today, that WW1 ended under 20 years ago and we are heading towards WW2. It is a time that a depressed America was looking for inspiration from anywhere.
The main plot arc of the film involves an orphanage, run by a controlling scoundrel, Frank Wynn (Wayne Knight), who hires a new math teacher and football coach, Rusty Russell (Luke Wilson), to come help at the orphanage. Rusty brings his daughter and unconvinced wife (Vinessa Shaw), who live with him on the campus. She also teaches at the orphanage. The orphanage doctor (Martin Sheen), comes on to act as the defensive coach of the team. The team undergoes tough times and challenges as they manage to crawl their way to the championships and the hearts of Americans everywhere, including FDR. There are many other arcs and character information that is woven into this film.
It is a story that has been told before, weather it was football, hockey, basketball or any other sporting event. It is one of those trial and tribulation-type of stories, with the underdogs beating adversity, with hopes of finding the best of happy endings, that history can provide. This counts as the docudrama part of the film. A film that is always a difficult task for a director, because he has to find a way of bringing in the right amount of entertainment, without sacrificing the historical accuracies needed to get the audience's trust. This kind of small budget, small cast, meticulously told sports history story, involving characters ages 12-19, has been seen before, but it is the part this story plays in history, that makes this film different and interesting. It does not have the feel of a remake or a clone, but does give feelings of consumed, artistic familiarity.
When we look at the biopic portion of the film it doesn't center around just one person. In this film, we get to see the biopics of many characters. These kids start at rock bottom and eventually become excellent contributors to society. The team's exploits actually changed the course of football into a new direction, much like we see the sport played today. There are many interesting points of history hit upon in this film and it is that aspect that makes this film special. The acting of the cast is very well done. They do convey the pain and the sorrow that the orphans must face. We feel for Rusty as he deals with PTSD induced reminders of his days in WW1. We feel the stress, along with the struggles, as Sheen's Doc Hall, fights his alcohol demons. We see Rusty make an impact on the orphanage, as well as, relieving his wife's doubts and winning over the whole town.
I have always liked Wayne Knight, as far back as his Seinfeld days and Jurassic Park (1993). However, there are some moments when Wayne Knight's Frank Wynn does go overboard with the comic relief reaction shots. We do witness Wayne, just being Wayne, for minor comic relief uses. It made his character come off as being cartoonish at some moments in the film. I mention that only as it applies to this film. The injection of these moments do derail the tone of the film sometimes, but it has nothing to do with Knight's great talent.
The film does accomplish what it was supposed to. It entertains, as much as history will let it, while also teaching us a little history, that increases the interest in the plot. The characterizations and seasoned acting makes this film enjoyable. Seeing greats like Martin Sheen, Luke Wilson and cameos by a bunch of veteran actors, brings in that old, wonderful, Hollywood-style. I noticed a couple of editing miscues and the film could have been a little shorter, but familiarities are not a problem here. It's just a nice, low-energy, walk down history's lane.
8.2 (B MyGrade) = 8 IMDB - DirectorRobert SchwentkeStarsHenry GoldingAndrew KojiHaruka AbeSnake Eyes, a tenacious loner, is welcomed into an ancient Japanese clan called the Arashikage, who teach him the ways of the ninja and provide him home. But when secrets from his past are revealed, his honor and allegiance will be tested.Released: July 23rd, 2021
Viewed: July 28th, 2021
Looking back over the last 12 years, since the first GI Joe film came out (GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra - 2009), the landscape, that this type of film inhabits, has changed some since then. In the years since 2009, a new type of film-franchising has taken the world by storm. Of course, I am talking about the cross-over franchise universes that are the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the DC Extended Universe. Both have managed to create self-contained film/TV universes, teaming with characters and worlds, full of stories to tell, for the next many decades to come. It even has helped earlier franchises, such as Star Trek and Star Wars, find/expand their franchise limits even further as well. Heck, even the Legendary Pictures Godzilla/Kong Monster-verse seems to be working also. Looking at this new form of film franchise creation, from a Hasbro production perspective, creates a certain problem for the success of this film.
When looking at Hasbro's success since the first Transformers (2007), came out, the money is definitely there, but the critical response has been a difficult road for the toy/entertainment giant. That is the part we want to concentrate on here and not the monetary value of the IPs. We should be honest here and say that Hasbro's best film was Battleship (2012), which never got a sequel and maybe, half of the Transformers movies were better than fair. We also should note that, the first two GI Joe movies were not really great either. Could Hasbro do something to correct the course that this seemingly damaged IP has? Can it learn a lesson from what came before it without being a modern day film cliché? What really is worse is, these are just the beginning of the hurtles that Snake Eyes: GI Joe Origins (2021), needs to face in order to be good.
Snake Eyes picks up on many film clichés, new and old, such as, the fact that it copied the X-Men Origins concept by making it GI Joe Origins. I saw some Guy Ritchie inspired text placements (see Wrath of Man - 2021), throughout this film. Many of the motorcycle scenes looked like they were pulled right out of Akira (1988). It even had the standard superhero lineup that happens right before the big climactic fight scene commences. There's even an after credits scene. In fact this totally looked like a carbon copy of a Marvel attempt. Also, don't release this film in a year that is already teeming with Asian-inspired, action-type, plot lines. We just saw the release of the Mortal Kombat (2021), remake. A new Kung Fu (2021), show just debuted on the CW. Plus, we have been gearing up for the last 18 months for the soon to be released Marvel film, Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021). There is going to be content saturation that will effect originality.
The producers try to salvage the GI Joe film series by placing all its hopes on exploring the origin of one of its main characters. The problem stems from the fact that this type of character has been seen before and may not be as original an idea after all. They decide to pick a character, who is mostly a faceless, dark, shadowy, ninja type of persona. He is always seen that way in the GI Joe films, known for wearing a dark black hooded mask, who usually doesn't say much either. Now we have a backstory about this guy, which doesn't hold your attention much, because the character was so one dimensional already. We learn how he becomes Snake Eyes and what contributions the snakes play into his story, but that aspect starts to counteract the whole original form of the character. You begin not to care. It is a GI Joe story, but it becomes boring and dull. There are some good action scenes that seem hampered at times by the slow script. The excellently choreographed stunts begin to look all too familiar.
That by no means implies that this is a horrible film. Not by a long shot. There are some good points to this film. Some interesting aspects that make it compelling to watch. If you look at this film based on basic technical film principles then it is a perfect film. It has all the polish, professional perfections that any Hollywood film made today has, but after 125 years of movies, that isn't always enough. The film was way too long and when we finally get to the part of the movie centered around that pivotal moment when we finally learn the GI Joe connection with Snake Eyes, is fumbled. That great moment when these two huge pillars of the plotline first meet, becomes almost an afterthought.
What saves this film is the excellent acting by the superb, almost completely, Asian cast. One of the great aspects of Snake Eyes, who is from Asian-descent, named after a pair of dice, is completely American (since he was captured as a young child and grew up in Los Angeles), gets thrown into a situation in this film taking him all the way to Japan and he can only speak English. He is that real American hero, who needs his captors, allies and enemies to speak English to him or else those big speeches at the start of fights won't fall on deaf ears. So by casting a good, competent, professional group of Asian actors, who can articulate their lines well for the main character, as well as, for the audience, is done quite well in this film. The acting is top notch in this one. It brings in the non-perfect, human aspect of the equation, that makes Snake Eyes' character more interesting.
There also are many cool camera shots of Tokyo and other surrounding areas of Japan. I enjoyed some of the action scenes that did have an aura of familiarity to me. I am giving Snake Eyes an E+ for Effort and I still recommend seeing the film in theaters to support the excellent work of the Asian cast. GI Joe fans might like this exploration into their most famous and popular character, but for everyone else in the audience this film may feel too long, familiar and at times boring. I just hope GI Joe fans weren't as mad as I was when that pivotal moment, when Snake Eyes learns about the Joe Organization, ends up being less exciting then a yawn. The snakes were silly too, but nerve-wracking.
5.2 (E+ MyGrade) = 5 IMDB - DirectorM. Night ShyamalanStarsGael García BernalVicky KriepsRufus SewellA vacationing family discovers that the secluded beach where they're relaxing for a few hours is somehow causing them to age rapidly, reducing their entire lives into a single day.Released: July 23rd, 2021
Viewed: July 29th, 2021
In the 30 years since M. Night Shyamalan came onto the director's stage, I have followed him, more or less, the whole time. What makes him uniquely interesting to me is the fact that he promotes southeastern Pennsylvania and most of his films are either shot in/set in areas around the Philadelphia area, where I am from. So, it was always entertaining to watch the film unfold, while also trying to figure out if I know the location where he is shooting the scene. He has always been a great Philly guy. In the case of Old (2021), a film that takes place completely on a tropical island resort, nowhere near the east coast of the United States, still has main characters, who are from Philadelphia. Nice touch. This was interesting notion to me, because I could concentrate less on locations and more on the film itself.
What transpires from here is a group of tourists are taken to an unknown beach cove and as the hours go by they realize they are trapped inside, a time anomaly bubble and time is ticking faster than normal, making them age quicker. They soon are aware that they are trapped and can't go back out the way they came in. They need to escape this beach or figure out what is going on before time runs out. The film contains all the tricks, techniques and mood found in an M. Night Shyamalan thriller.
Now let's look at how things turned out. M. Night Shyamalan always brings along a very unique look at a particular story. He always comes up with interesting ideas on presenting his story. He sprinkles in the camera as if it is exploring the space around the characters, teasing the audience with subtle changes effecting the situation. None of this is more evident as we see the younger characters begin to age. There are certain planned camera angles and pans that help establish a true believability factor. You truly can tell they are aging, even the older characters, who, as you would expect, don't have their physical forms change as much as the kids, but you can see it due to crafty filmmaking. The movie really is a beauty to watch unfold.
What hurts the film are the same typical M. Night Shyamalan issues that seem to creep up in his films. He has a good basis on what the story will be about, but as the film goes along there tends to be drag that happens in the pacing of the film. The story tends to become winded and ends up being too long. I felt like I was aging rapidly too. The execution of the filmmaking feels like hills and valleys. He does something that is genius, then follows up with a "why did he do that"? There are some moments that are silly (calcium anyone?) and some that are pretty frightening.
The other thing that hurts his films, I feel, is his need to appear in the films himself. I am all for the Hitchcockian cameo, but when M. Night appears in the film it totally sparks a pompous narcissistic atmosphere that penetrates the mood of the film. It just doesn't feel right. I keep thinking its me and I must be missing something, but the other day, when I saw this film, I felt validated some. M. Night makes his appearance and I hear in the audience a teenage girl say, somewhat sarcastically, "there he is"! So, if younger people are seeing him pop up in these films and act like its become somewhat tedious and forced, then imagine how the older audiences have felt since 1999 when the Sixth Sense dazzled the nation. Take a break from the acting please. Stick to the Hitchcock way.
There still is enough to enjoy this film. It is good enough to be seen in theaters, in fact, it should be seen in theaters. The tropical locations, the excellent camera work, the talented cast and the desire to be thrilled for 108 minutes does translate well in the movie theaters. As with all M. Night films, this one will go down as a cult classic and maybe someday will be considered a modern classic that just needs some time to go by. No pun intended, but for many films they sometimes age better with time.
6.1 (D+ MyGrade) = 6 IMDB - DirectorCate ShortlandStarsScarlett JohanssonFlorence PughDavid HarbourNatasha Romanoff confronts the darker parts of her ledger when a dangerous conspiracy with ties to her past arises.Released: July 9th, 2021
Viewed: July 31st, 2021
In the ever changing landscape that is Hollywood, no matter what kind of film you are doing, usually the results fall to ticket sales. So, if you are the MCU, you also have to look beyond the film itself and look ahead at franchise preservation. As you know 2019s Avengers: End Game (with an epilogue companion film in Spiderman: Far From Home - 2019), ended a three phase, 11 year, 24 film run, which ended in a critically acclaimed, fan supported, general audience box office smash. How do you top that? Well, for now, you don't.
When accomplishing a feat that Kevin Feige was able to pull off, you need to understand your audience and fanbase well, which he does. In order to accomplish your success a second time you need to pull back and reign in your audience's expectations a little. You want to recreate that build up that made the first three phases so successful. That also includes tempering expectations for the audience. This is where things go off the rails for Black Widow (2021), when looking at it as a stand alone film. As part of a franchise, it does what it needs to do.
Black Widow (2021), is meticulously and painfully crafted as a quiet entry in the MCU canon. As the first film of phase four, it tries not to dazzle or even really entertain, but more than anything else, it wants to tell the missing story of one of the Avengers' legendary characters. The film slowly begins the next Marvel saga off to a future, much bigger build up, over the next 10 years, which will hopefully dazzle us again, like Avengers: End Game (2019), did. It is the sacrifice that Black Widow (2021), has to do for the greater overall picture. As fun, enjoyable and pioneering that the first Ironman (2008), was, it still was mediocre fare by the time we got to End Game. Weather it was intentional or not, the early MCU build up from the early films, is what was needed for the overall spectacular event that happened at the end of the Infinity Saga.
Now let's look at Black Widow (2021), on its own. Being as it is an established character, the legendary Black Widow/Natasha Romanov (Scarlett Johansson), what we need to learn from the film, we do. In flashbacks we learn about Natasha's early childhood. We meet her pseudo-family, who are actually Russian spies, posing as her and her sister's (not related by blood), parents, who end up being on assignment a little too long and when the time comes for them to go home, the years have added way too many emotions and feelings to the girls psyche. So how do these assigned parents break free to return to the motherland without crushing the feelings and beliefs of their "daughters" Natasha and Yelena (Florence Pugh)?
Intertwined between the flashbacks to the mid-1990s, was the time period that the Marvel fans really came to see. The film actually takes place in 2016 and contains the information that filled in the early missing years between Captain America: Civil War (2016), and Avengers: Infinity War (2018). Widow is on the run from the Sokovia Accords and after a few safe houses, she manages to track down her pseudo-family again in order to take down the Taskmaster and a handful of rogue Widows. We also get to learn more about the Red Room, the society that takes in the young women to be trained as Black Widows and what implications this life had on Natasha and Yelena. Their father is an aged, over-the-hill, ex-superhero himself, the Red Guardian (David Harbour), who is the Russian version of Captain America. Their mother is an original Black Widow (Rachel Weisz).
The film accomplishes what it needed to at the expense of its own critical success. It needed to pay full attention to the character's history, her overall story arc and not worry about dazzle and flair. The film looks just as professional and polished as any other MCU film, it's just boring. I am giving this film a 6/10, which to me is still a good enough film to go see in the theaters. It should be seen in the theaters, because it does contain some big screen moments, it's just slow. As a Marvel fan I did not like the approach that they took with Taskmaster, but I'll let you decide if you care about that. It is important that the film paid homage to Natasha, considering what we know of her final fate. That feeling hangs over the film like a shroud though and may impact the overall quality of the film, because it might be that shroud that creates the overall feeling of an empty, dull script. Add in the fact that Scarlett Johansson is now suing Disney for streaming rights compensations just adds more to the shroud that seems to be hanging over this film. Did I mention the year and a half COVID delay on this film too? We probably needed more from the film and unfortunately the producers can't deliver that, because we have the overall picture to worry about.
6.4 (D+ MyGrade) = 6 IMDB - DirectorJaume Collet-SerraStarsDwayne JohnsonEmily BluntEdgar RamírezBased on Disneyland's theme park ride where a small riverboat takes a group of travelers through a jungle filled with dangerous animals and reptiles but with a supernatural element.Released: July 30th, 2021
Viewed: August 3rd, 2021
When you make a PG film these days, not only do you have to entertain the kids, but you have to remember the older viewers as well. You still want to fill these seats with parents, as well as, with kids. If the parents aren't happy they might not bring their kids anymore. You also need to entertain those older viewers without insulting their intelligence. Thinking you can get something past the kids, that the parents won't notice, doesn't always work. It can hurt the trust between the director and the audience. In the case of Jungle Cruise (2021), director Jaume Collet-Serra tries to weave a tale that works for both, but runs into a couple of issues. These issues are minor and there are still some good bright spots found throughout the film.
This is a classic tale that has been seen before, but this one is based off of a Disney theme park ride. I actually had the pleasure of taking the Jungle Cruise, while visiting Disney World back in 2018, so that helped give me some insight into the idea behind this movie. I could relate to the film in some way. By no means, do you need to take the ride, in order to enjoy the film, but it helps. It is that classic jungle adventure film, seen throughout film's ages, which includes action, comedy, romance, evil, danger and all the other ingredients needed for this type of film.
Emily Blunt plays Lily Houghton, who is much like a female Indiana Jones, who, along with her brother sidekick Aguirre, are trying to track down a legendary plant that could cure all forms of diseases found in the world. Dwayne Johnson plays the river Captain Frank Wolff, who actually does a nice job portraying the one-lined jokester of a captain. Also in the cast, one of the other reasons why I wanted to see this film, is Frank's competitor in the river business, Nilo (Paul Giamatti), doing what he does best as a loan collecting jerk.
As, Frank, Lily and Aguirre make their way through the Amazon they are pursued by a German aristocrat named Joachim, who has his own submarine and also wants the power of the plant for his own uses. The film takes place in 1916, so the writers are playing up the idea that the world is gearing up for WWI. Lily actually expresses to Frank that the plant could help with the war effort, so we know the time-period and what is going on in the world at this time. There also is a plot arc that takes place in the 16th century involving early conquistadors, who also searched for the mythical tree and the fate that comes to those who search for it.
There is an underlying feeling throughout the film of familiarity and when I figured it out it didn't bother me too much. You can clearly see a Disney-type template in the film, based off of the Pirates of the Caribbean films (2003-2017). The captain, the tough female lead, the weak sidekick, the political aristocrat, the adversary, a curse, a treasure, a ship, supernatural sea creatures, etc. It works for Jungle Cruise, in the fact that those films were PG-13, which allowed the filmmakers to teeter into the sexual innuendos and under-the-cuff jokes that you can't really do in a PG film so much. It helps Jungle Cruise, because there is an invisible wall in-between our two main characters, that doesn't push the unbelievability of romanticism between the two. It allows the film to concentrate on the film's other positive aspects and have fun being humorous with other sections of the plot.
The problems arise when we revisit the kids/parents thing mentioned above. In one early scene in the movie, while Frank and Aguirre are trying to get the boat down the river, while being chased by Nilo's men, they are separated from Lily. Unknown to them, she becomes ensnared in a cage full of birds and is hijacked by pirates to be sold on the black market. As her cage is taken into a building the birds are flying above in the air. Down on the river, the boat takes a turn around a bend and Frank sees the birds circling the building. Frank yells, "Lily!". How did Frank know that was Lily in the cage? There must have been a scene/shot that was taken out of the film for time constraints, thinking that the kids won't notice the plot flaw here, but forgot that the adults might notice. That was a major plot flaw. There is no indication that Frank or Aguirre noticed what happened to Lily, but you have to keep the movie rolling along.
The other thing that was a hard sell involved Emily Blunt's Lily character. She does a fine job executing the positives of the character into an entertaining performance. It just wasn't a good idea to make her look like a seasoned action-hero. I was having a hard time buying that aspect of her character. Sure, she can be tough! Sure, she can be heroic. She can be smart and carry a gun. She can be all those things. Her sexist nickname from Frank is "Pants". Another clever commentary about her character and a reminder of the time period, being the fact that the film still inhabits a period in our history when women didn't wear pants. She is tough, but I felt she showed a fearlessness that was too over-the-top. She also had an agility and fighting prowess that could have been like Jackie Chan's. I couldn't buy that character flaw either.
The film does manage to entertain the viewer with plenty of action scenes, stunts, nicely crafted CGI landscapes, smart one-line jokes (intended to be stupid jokes, which makes them better when The Rock says them), colorful characters, a complementing soundtrack and a story that carries you to the end. There are just a few continuity, editing and plot flaw mistakes that brings this film down from being really good. It's still a strong film and one that should be seen in the theaters.
7.0 (C MyGrade) = 7 IMDB - DirectorDavid LoweryStarsDev PatelAlicia VikanderJoel EdgertonA fantasy retelling of the medieval story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.Released: July 30th, 2021
Viewed: August 4th, 2021
This film, based off of the legends and lore of the King Arthur era, tells a story about a man, Gawain (Dev Patel), who seems totally out of his league, but tries to be a knight nonetheless. The Green Knight is actually a frightening monstrous beast, who challenges all the other knights to a duel, but the catch is whatever damage inflicted on him will be returned, in favor, one year later to the knight who accepts the challenge. Of course, Gawain, the moron, takes on the Green Knight, decapitates him and has to spend the next year waiting for his own eminent beheading.
Not sure what I just saw, but I think it was cool.
7.4 (C+ MyGrade) = 7 IMDB - DirectorEdson OdaStarsWinston DukeZazie BeetzBill SkarsgårdA reclusive man conducts a series of interviews with human souls for a chance to be born.Released: July 30th, 2021
Viewed: August 6th, 2021
This film tries to tackle an idea that I didn't even know was a thing. The idea that souls (?), have to wait in a limbo, of sorts, before getting a life to live. That they have to go through trials and stages before they can advence to a real life. I didn't even know people thought of these things. The idea still created food for thought in my head and the film carried me along.
8.3 (B MyGrade) = 8 IMDB - DirectorLisa JoyStarsHugh JackmanRebecca FergusonThandiwe NewtonNick Bannister, a private investigator of the mind, navigates the alluring world of the past when his life is changed by new client Mae. A simple case becomes an obsession after she disappears and he fights to learn the truth about her.Released: August 20th, 2021
Viewed: August 20th, 2021
The science fiction genre is enjoying a huge comeback these days. Many films and TV shows are flooding the markets for hungry audiences. Along with advances in CGI technology, more and more, non-science fiction followers are coming into the fold. Today's new audience can handle the believability factor better, because of the beautiful, convincing images created by the artists. The genre is enjoying a resurgence based off of one of its key plot components, technology.
That is a key point to this film's plot, which involves technology that is able to view human memories as if they were streaming from the internet.
If you can view memories in this future earth then the idea of solving crimes takes on a whole new meaning. Cue Hugh Jackman's Private Memory Investigator, Nick Bannister, throw in his attractive, but tough assistant, Emily (Thandiwe Newton), create a future earth that is ravaged by global sea rise and bring in a beautiful seductress, Mae (Rebecca Ferguson), to make our hero's life miserable, as he makes her his obsession. What more could you ask in a movie?
The presentation of earth flooded by water is future-Miami looking like Venice, where everyone gets around by boat. There are some higher areas that people can walk or drive on sometimes, if the waters subside, but usually the inhabitants of this Miami usually have to wear boots. It is a wet mess. There a no areas that aren't underwater. The CGI work used for these scenes is nicely done and convincing. It represents a frightening image, but the human ability to adapt creates a feeling that the people have gotten used to this kind of life.
7.4 (C+ MyGrade) = 7 IMDB - DirectorJames GunnStarsMargot RobbieIdris ElbaJohn CenaSupervillains Harley Quinn, Bloodsport, Peacemaker, and a collection of nutty cons at Belle Reve prison join the super-secret, super-shady Task Force X as they are dropped off at the remote, enemy-infused island of Corto Maltese.Released: August 5th, 2021
Viewed: August 21st, 2021
With the franchise-starting powerhouse that was Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016), the first Suicide Squad (2016), film got shoehorned between that and Wonder Woman (2017), as a device to bring together Ben Affleck's Bruce Wayne and Viola Davis' Amanda Waller, in what would be, not a terrible, but definitely a disappointing entry into the DCEU. It would be a way to try to grow this universe a little more with its colorful and interesting cast of characters. As the third film in the franchise, it would try to cement Affleck further as the main franchise leader, but that moment would only happen in the post credits scene.
8.3 (B MyGrade) = 8 IMDB - DirectorDavid BrucknerStarsRebecca HallSarah GoldbergVondie Curtis-HallA widow begins to uncover her recently deceased husband's disturbing secrets.Released: August 20th, 2021
Viewed: August 23rd, 2021
There was a lot of loose plot holes and continuity issues.
6.4 (D+ MyGrade) = 6 IMDB - DirectorMartin CampbellStarsMichael KeatonMaggie QSamuel L. JacksonRescued as a child by the legendary assassin Moody, Anna is the world's most skilled contract killer. However, when Moody is brutally killed, she vows revenge for the man who taught her everything she knows.Released: August 20th, 2021
Viewed: August 27th, 2021
7.3 (C+ MyGrade) = 7 IMDB - DirectorDestin Daniel CrettonStarsSimu LiuAwkwafinaTony Leung Chiu-waiShang-Chi, the master of weaponry-based Kung Fu, is forced to confront his past after being drawn into the Ten Rings organization.Released: September 3rd, 2021
Viewed: September 17th, 2021
Marvel tries to tap into the magic again, that made virtually unknown characters, like the Guardians of the Galaxy into stars, by introducing another lesser known character with the hopes of making him a movie star. Shang-Chi was born in the comics in the early 70s. He was patterned after Bruce Lee and has had an interesting evolution to his character since 1973 (mostly due to copyright issues). Since third tier characters, like the GOTG, did so well when they came to the movies, Marvel felt they could capture magic in the bottle again.
With the already established MCU in full swing, all they really had to do was drop in some easter eggs and cameos from other MCU IPs to keep the fans happy and not mess up the main goal of making Shang-Chi look cool, successful and something that movie-goers want to see again.
8.3 (B MyGrade) = 8 IMDB - DirectorShawn LevyStarsRyan ReynoldsJodie ComerTaika WaititiWhen Guy, a bank teller, learns that he is a non-player character in a bloodthirsty, open-world video game, he goes on to become the hero of the story and takes the responsibility of saving the world.Released: August 13th, 2021
Viewed: September 18th, 2021
7.2 (C MyGrade) = 7 IMDB - DirectorOrson WellesStarsOrson WellesJoseph CottenDorothy ComingoreFollowing the death of publishing tycoon Charles Foster Kane, reporters scramble to uncover the meaning of his final utterance: 'Rosebud.'This is Orson Welles' amazingly perfect film, that everyone has heard of, especially if they enjoy the art of film. This film is about the fictional life of newspaper publisher Charles Foster Kane (Welles). It is a story, loosely based, on the real life story of publisher William Randolph Hearst. It follows Kane's life from early boyhood to his death, all the while, the world tries to solve the mystery, behind what “Rosebud” means, which you find out, right off the bat, in the beginning of the film, is the last word Kane says before he dies. The film goes from there and tells the fictional biopic of Charles Foster Kane in beautifully styed flashback scenes.
This film is hailed, by most, as the greatest movie ever made. It is massive in in its scale, which totally fills the 4:3 film-noir space. Welles' directing and editing styles are what you find in filmmaking textbooks. Welles implements some of the best cinema tricks known at the time. He uses those tricks to extract an emotional response from the audience. He utilizes flashbacks, tricky editing, audio effect triggers for quick editing segues and many other juxtaposition concepts, in order to make his point. His ability to use the camera to create energy in his scenes and with his cast, rivals his ability to do the same thing with perspectives, shapes and moods.
Citizen Kane (1941), truly is the masterpiece, that it has been labeled, for over 80 years now. It is a brilliant piece of work. Along with an excellent supporting cast of Joseph Cotton, Dorothy Corningore, Everett Sloan and Agnes Moorehead, we learn what drives a man to be the best at everything. We learn about the price of being the richest man in the world. We learn, that with all that power, money and fame, huge figures like Kane also fall prey to the same things everyone else does. We learn what true story-telling is when we watch this film. It is through the art of cinema, that this film encapsulates into a perfect package. This is what cinema gold is supposed to look like, which is one of the best journeys ever on film. I saw this film for the 80th anniversary release in the theaters in 2021, which was a huge treat. It looks majestic up on the big screen. It is somewhat like, a holy grail of the movies.
9.8 (A+ MyGrade) = 10 IMDB - DirectorAndy SerkisStarsTom HardyWoody HarrelsonMichelle WilliamsEddie Brock attempts to reignite his career by interviewing serial killer Cletus Kasady, who becomes the host of the symbiote Carnage and escapes prison after a failed execution.
- DirectorCary Joji FukunagaStarsDaniel CraigAna de ArmasRami MalekJames Bond has left active service. His peace is short-lived when Felix Leiter, an old friend from the CIA, turns up asking for help, leading Bond onto the trail of a mysterious villain armed with dangerous new technology.
- DirectorDavid Gordon GreenStarsJamie Lee CurtisJudy GreerAndi MatichakSurviving victims of Michael Myers form a vigilante mob and vow to end his reign of terror.
- DirectorDenis VilleneuveStarsTimothée ChalametRebecca FergusonZendayaA noble family becomes embroiled in a war for control over the galaxy's most valuable asset while its heir becomes troubled by visions of a dark future.So, after listening to people, over the last 40 years, criticize or complain about the original David Lynch classic, Dune (1984), I was excited to see what the studio would do this time, to make things better or possibly worse. I see however, that they did manage to make this film even more boring than the original. I rarely fall asleep, while watching a movie, but Dune (2021), managed to do it. I did doze off for a couple of minutes, but in the film's defense, it was a morning screening. Sure, the original film had some technical issues, that many people didn't like (not me, I thought the 1984 classic had really good effects for the time, with most flaws centered around typical, 1980s matting issues, with the green screen effects), but the original film, at least, had some charm to it too. Dune (2021), seemed a little lifeless. This doesn't always mean, that the film is bad. It just means, it was meticulous, in its design.
However, for both movies, the moments of boredom or sleepiness, to most people, who are watching these films, is brought upon by the long runtime of both films. But, that might be the nature of Dune. Sometimes, an amazing work of art, which is the basic design of this story, needs that extra amount of time to explain, maybe too tenaciously, all the deep needed information, for it to be interesting. It is comparable to when you are reading a book. So if you remove the tedious, boring factor, that may creep into the mood or pacing sometimes, from over-explanation in a script, then both of these movies are strong films to watch. Without mentioning too much about the original film, (since this is a review for the new film), the part I liked the most about Dune (2021), was the Hans Zimmer soundtrack. What also makes this film extremally eye-catching, are the technical achievements, found in the film's effects, which are done really well. Add the special CGI effects, with Hans Zimmer and a meticulous story, will move along for you much nicer. I did like the number of gathered, Marvel and DC actors/actresses, that are in this film. I am still a bigger fan of the original Dune (1984).
7.1 (C) = 7 IMDB - DirectorChloé ZhaoStarsGemma ChanRichard MaddenAngelina JolieThe saga of the Eternals, a race of immortal beings who lived on Earth and shaped its history and civilizations.