Showing posts with label Charles Dance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charles Dance. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Wednesday Review - Underworld: Blood War


It’s not much of a compliment to say that this movie is better than Underworld: Awakening. The last film really represented the point at which it became clear there was never any intention to give this franchise a real direction beyond the whims of whichever actors agreed to return. Rise of the Lycans was probably the best of the series, and clearly left room for another prequel. However, lacking either Michael Sheen or Scott Speedman, but with Kate Beckinsale onboard, the franchise veered off in a new direction, and now takes place in the future. The fact that this is in the future, however, is almost never referenced in this film, and has become pretty much superfluous.

Underworld: Blood War was supposedly reworked when the Divergent series suddenly made Theo James popular. It shows, as David, a fairly minor character in the previous film, is now clearly the secondary lead, and has a story-arc ripped straight from Lord of the Rings grafted on. Aragorn is now in an Underworld movie, right down to the sword he’s reluctant to take.

I was somewhat optimistic about the decision to recast Michael Corvin with a new actor. It seemed like a chance to move things forward on a plotline unused for the last two movies. If anyone feels the same way, kill that feeling with fire. Not to give too much away, the new actor’s screentime is far less than the amount of time spent on stock footage of Speedman.

As pessimistic as this sounds, however, the movie did start to regain my interest about halfway through. I’m not sure how objective I can be saying that it’s not as good as the original Underworld, since that’s a movie that came out at exactly the right point in my adolescence to become a major nostalgic joy. However, I do feel that movie had a certain degree of reverence for vampires and werewolves, introducing a more powerful being only at the end, and with great awe. Here, however, new powers and breeds for the vampires and werewolves are being thrown around like candy.

It’s Theo James, though, who unexpectedly saves the day. Beckinsale, at this point in the franchise, just seems bored. James, on the other hand, is somehow able to invoke the stoic badass look that Selene wore in the original, and deliver lines and kicks with a sense of absolute sincerity. I get the feeling James knew this movie was rewritten for him, and was going to show his gratitude by giving it his all. He made me care about a character who’s arc has been done a million times.

As a final note, I’m glad the Lycans are finally getting at least a bit more attention. So far, Rise of the Lycans is the only movie to really give them the role of protagonists. However, the new leader this movie gives us can’t hold a candle to Michael Sheen’s performance as Lucien. At least they’re not background set dressing anymore.

I know I’m rambling, and you likely just want my opinion on the movie. Here it is: It’s an okay movie, worth checking out. Without James, it would have been amusingly awful like the second and fourth movies in this series. With him, it’s a silk purse made from a sow’s ear.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Wednesday Review: Ghostubsters (2016)


Walking into a review of this movie is basically sticking my foot in a shark tank. There’s no opinion I can express that won’t make someone mad. So, saying I like the movie, I await the misogynists tracking me down

That said: Chris Hemsworth character is the weakest part of this movie. This isn’t because Hemsworth is a bad actor, or because the film is bashing men. Rather, it’s because Kevin is so stupid and useless that the decision to continue employing him completely killed my suspension of disbelief. He went above and beyond the standard “stupid secretary who doesn’t care” into utter absurdity. This even continues after Patty (Leslie Jones) points out that she has a cousin who is at least marginally competent, and would work for less. I jumped for joy when Kevin was possessed, and I could finally see Hemsworth being charismatic and funny.

That out of the way, however, this is probably about as good as you’re ever going to get remaking a classic film. Yes, there are references to the original, but for the most part the movie is doing its own thing. Story-wise, I suspect some aspects of the canceled Ghostbuster 3 scripts may have been used. The villain, while underdeveloped, feels like something of a logical follow-up to Gozer (I’ll discuss this more when I do a regular review of the film someday). Plot-wise this movie is arguably less of a rehash of the original than Ghostbusters 2.

The characters, however, are where this movie really shines. For the most part, none of these characters are direct translations of the original team, but they all feel fleshed out and developed to one degree or another. Kate McKinnon gets the fewest character moments, but makes up for it by being awesome to watch. More significantly, they manage to make each character believably smart without defining them exclusively by their intelligence, or failing to distinguish them.

The trailers did a poor job of representing this film, but I’m honestly not sure how I would have done it differently. This isn’t a film that’s easily summed up in clips a few seconds long, because much of the humor does come from establishing the characters and watching them interact. Yes, there’s childish humor, but in the context of the movie we can tell that it’s the characters, rather than the writers, who are childish.

Is it as good as the original? No, not really. But it isn’t trying to be compared to the original. It’s trying to be a new film about the concept of busting ghosts. As that film, it works.