I've already written about the latest in the ALIEN franchise but here are the other two theatrical viewings for last month.
About GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL. 2 (2017) I'll just say
that although it isn't as fresh as the first film it still had more than enough
energy, imagination and humor to make for a very fun couple of hours in the
extended Marvel Universe. Ever since SLITHER (2006) writer/director James Gunn has
shown himself to be a clever, witty fellow capable of making even large,
unwieldy ideas easily understandable and abrasive characters somehow relatable.
Frankly, Marvel is lucky to have him. This is a damn good movie and I can't
wait for more.
But I want to single out two performances for praise. I've
said for a while now that the easiest way to up the quality of your film is to
get Kurt Russell in the cast. The man is effortlessly cool and a brilliant
professional who adds immeasurably to whatever story you place him in. Given
the right role he may one day actually be noticed by his colleagues as the
shinning talent hiding behind that mountain of sheer charisma but until then we
can just soak up his awesomeness in roles like Ego. As soon as I knew he had
been cast in this role I knew he could pull it off and, indeed, just might be
the only living actor able to play a living, planet sized intelligence without
embarrassing himself. Russell is perfect here and shows once again that he can
do damned near anything onscreen asked of him.
The other performance has already been talked about by
writers my skilled than I so I'll just add my voice to the choir - Michael
Rooker has been James Gunn's secret acting weapon for more than a decade and
it's high time everyone else noticed how good he is. Here Rooker reprises his
role as Yondo and is allowed to bring color (hahaha) and depth to the character
that was completely unexpected. By answering the lingering questions about his
attachment to Quill we get a beautiful and ultimately touching arc that shows
Rooker digging into this criminal and showing us the wounded heart of a good
person. He is fantastic and if these kinds of films were taken at all seriously
by critics he would be nominated for a supporting actor award or two.
Sometimes when you see a film that is no good it can be
difficult to pinpoint exactly what went wrong. Such is not the case with KING
ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD (2017). There are two big problems with this movie
one of which might not have been under the control of the director. But the
second one is a direct result of the director's weaknesses and he should have
known better.
I've loved Guy Ritchie's crime films, really liked his
Holmes films and I think his stab at The Man From UNCLE was brilliant but it
seems that he has taken the wrong lesson from those tales. Ritchie and his
writers have reimagined Arthur and his band of blokes as a group of London pimps and
criminals which might well have worked IF - and this is a big if - there had been
any attempt to make us believe that these characters existed in the story's period of
history. But there is zero desire (it would seem) to have these
guys act like people would act in Arthurian England, so, instead we get SNATCH
refugees running around being cool with knives instead of guns. It does not
work and so often destroys the tone and atmosphere that the excellent
production design evokes that it becomes completely irritating. Casting the characters as
rouges with rough edges was a good idea but making them late 20th
century pub blokes with dialog that feels lifted out of ROCKNROLLA was a huge
misstep.
The second big problem is one I'm not sure Richie could have
done much about given the state of things in filmmaking today. It would seem
that because of the Lord of the Rings films we will never be able to have
another medieval fantasy type battle without CGI creatures regardless of
whether they are needed. From the first few minutes of the film we are treated
(?) to the sight of several humongous war elephants helping to lay siege to an even
larger castle. They smash up against things, swing huge boulders tied to their
tails and just generally stomp around causing a large amount of CGI damage. All
this over-priced carnage is there only to give audiences what I'm sure is
perceived as what they expect - big monster CGI beasts. I mean, how will
anyone know this is a fantasy story without the big CGI beasties, huh?
It's pathetic unnecessary crap and it's clear that they were
an addition slathered onto the film late in the game by someone panicking that
people would expect such things in a film with swords and stuff. How do I know
they were added late? Because the monstrous animals are never even referenced
in the dialog! Wouldn't giant, tusked, castle-crushing brutes be a topic of
conversation in the aftermath of a battle? Or during it? Or at some damned
time? Ugh! What a lame mess.
The List
THE
LORELEY'S GRASP (1974) - 7 (rewatch)
THE
FALCON IN HOLLYWOOD
(1944) - 7
FRANKENSTEIN
MEETS THE SPACE MONSTER (1965) - 2
THE
FACE OF FU MANCHU (1965) - 7 (rewatch)
THE
OTHER HELL (1981) - 4 (Italian 'nuns get possessed' tale)
POINT
OF TERROR (1971) - 5 (drama masquerading as a horror tale)
GUARDIANS
OF THE GALAXY VOL. 2 (2017) - 8
ROBERT
KLEIN STILL CAN'T STOP HIS LEG (2016) - 8 (excellent documentary about the
comedian)
THE
BRIDES OF FU MANCHU (1966) - 6 (rewatch)
THE
VENGEANCE OF FU MANCHU (1967) 5 (rewatch)
ALIEN:
COVENANT (2017) - 8
NIGHT
HAS A THOUSAND DESIRES (1984) - 6
CALTIKI,
THE IMMORTAL MONSTER (1959) - 8 (rewatch)
TRAIN
TO BUSAN (2016) - 9 (excellent Korean zombie film)
STRYKER
(1983) - 4 (post-apocalyptic trudge)
KING
ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD (2017) - 4
PRIVATE
LIVES (1931) - 6 (Noel Coward play adapted in pre-code style)
ABBOT
& COSTELLO MEET THE MUMMY (1955) - 5 (rewatch)
1 comment:
The only thing I remember liking about Point of Terror was Dyanne Throne's..... talents.
Post a Comment