AQUAMAN AND THE LOST KINGDOM Review

The irony of Zack Snyder's latest sci-fi epic releasing on Netflix essentially the same day as what will be the final relic of his orchestration at Warner Bros. with regards to the DC Extended Universe (DCEU) is undoubtedly significant in some somber, unfortunate way yet I can't quite put my finger on why this congregation of Snyder's new and old universes feels sad on both accounts. It's paradoxical, sure, but I guess in the broader sense it simply seems like despite the DCEU not going his way that he has recovered by making a two-part, $166 million Star Wars rip-off for the biggest streaming service in the world and yet, it doesn't feel like a recovery at all; somehow it feels like a failure on two fronts which is what makes Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom all the more depressing. 

Remember when Willem Dafoe was in an Aquaman movie? Doesn't that feel like a lifetime ago and a universe away? Unfortunately, thanks to the pandemic and James Gunn both things are by and large true. Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom is the end of an era, the last of a dying breed, and though certainly not how Snyder saw things ending, the movie itself is not the worst note the current iteration of the DCEU could have gone out on (that would have been The Flash). It's not good, don't get me wrong, but there is a certain charm that director James Wan and, of course, star Jason Momoa bring to what are already absurd proceedings. Likely not the better movie of the two, but because I went into this much-delayed and much-maligned sequel five years after having been conditioned to certain expectations, this was a better overall experience because of the (much) lower anticipation level. All things considered, Wan is still very much a world-class filmmaker who knows how to mount a handsomely constructed action-adventure romp and when hung on the back of a comically over the top lead it couldn't be more perfect for feeding every Saturday morning desire of every nine-year-old out there.

OVERLORD Review

Here’s the thing about Overlord: I saw the trailer so many times I felt like I knew the movie back to front before I even walked in. It was one of those things where I’d notice something different or pick up on something new every time I saw the trailer to the point that when I realized the actual feature was opening this weekend it wasn’t that I didn’t necessarily care to see it, but I definitely felt indifferent about buying a ticket to a movie I didn’t expect to gain anything more from that I hadn’t already been conditioned to expect from the trailer. I tell this aspect of the story to lend a little perspective on why Overlord then ultimately came to be something of a pleasant surprise. In expecting a certain level of craft, care, and creativity I low-balled my expectations and was more than happy to find out I was wrong when the film kicked off and immediately kicked into high gear with a level of energy that was infectious. Stranger even, the opening of the film is the same scene that opens the trailer, but while there is the expectation of this being a full feature rather than a short preview there is also something to the altered pacing, musical accompaniment, and/or character dynamics that immediately plays into the level of investment one is willing to give no matter how much they think they know. This is a long way of getting around to saying that, despite the initial indifference through which it had to battle, Overlord is a movie that does very well at what it's built to do. It’s not an exceptional film that says something new or even anything terribly interesting about life or the psychology each of us project on its meaning, but as a movie that sets out to combine the terror of war with the terror of a zombie apocalypse and roll those into a somewhat hackneyed, but fully aware camp fest-Overlord accomplishes everything it could hope to and then some.

GHOST IN THE SHELL Review

For all the hoopla surrounding the whitewashing of what were originally Japanese characters and the hype that surrounded the source material from which Ghost in the Shell is based one might imagine it being easy to go into this movie with some sort of expectation. Given I have no connection to Masamune Shirow's original 1989 manga or the 1995 anime and understood that in order for such a property to get the big budget Hollywood treatment that it would require someone like a Scarlett Johansson in the lead role I went into Ghost in the Shell with no qualms and more or less an open mind in the hopes that ScarJo was only continuing to make interesting action movies concerning A.I. as she'd done not three years ago with Lucy. While Ghost in the Shell doesn't feel like a breakout in the same way that Luc Besson film was it is still very much an entertaining if not more dour experience than I half expected it to be given the color scheme of the marketing. Speaking to color scheme, it is in the futuristic environment that Ghost in the Shell finds its greatest strengths. Rather than simply offering a few neat visual cues here and there director Rupert Sanders (Snow White and the Huntsmen) owes his production designer, Jan Roelfs (Gattaca, 47 Ronin), and art department a huge thank you as it is this fully realized if not somewhat familiar future world that gives the film a sense of uniqueness despite its overall derivative nature. Of course, the deal with Ghost in the Shell is very much the same as the case was with 2012's John Carter in that much of what the source material inspired in popular culture (namely The Matrix) this big screen feature will now be accused of resembling. It's a sad state of truth, but the order of exposure appropriates how properties are perceived in the larger scope of the public eye and in some cases can tarnish the brand name. Ghost in the Shell isn't bad enough to offend or truly tarnish the name of the material it has re-imagined, but more it isn't noteworthy enough to seemingly live up to the past incarnations that share its namesake. Given I have no connections to those earlier versions of these ideas I actually came away thinking Sanders film was well constructed, that it held more emotional heft than expected, and executed its main ideas clearly if not as effectively as it could/should have.

Full Trailer for GHOST IN THE SHELL Starring Scarlett Johansson

I have no idea what Ghost in the Shell is about or why it has become such a talking point besides the decision to cast an American movie star like Scarlett Johansson instead of an Asian actor despite the character coming from a Japanese media franchise originally published as a seinen manga series. The source material has been around since 1989 and a film adaptation has apparently been in the works for over a decade, but given the brand has little impact outside its country of origin it makes sense why a major studio like Paramount would cast a name like Johansson in a pricey sci-fi flick that has franchise potential: she's a reliable performer and a box office draw. I can understand the accusations of whitewashing from those who have been long-time fans of the material, but this is simply how things work-just be thankful you're getting a big-budget movie adaptation with a credible talent in the lead as things could have no doubt gone much worse. If you've seen any of the Marvel Studios movies featuring her Black Widow or even Lucy one should feel comfortable with Paramount and director Rupert Sanders (Snow White and the Huntsmen) choice. Speaking of Sanders, while I wasn't a huge fan of his previous film, Huntsmen certainly had an undeniably appealing visual style and it seems the filmmaker has again brought an interesting aesthetic to his adaptation. Having no prior knowledge concerning the story or plot the manga series covered I would see this movie based on the visuals in the trailer alone, but all of that said I'm intrigued by what Ghost in the Shell might have on its mind. The film will apparently follow Johansson as The Major, a special ops, one-of-a-kind human-cyborg who leads an elite task force known as Section 9. Devoted to stopping the most dangerous criminals and extremists, Section 9 is faced with an enemy whose singular goal is to wipe out advancements in cyber technology. Ghost in the Shell also stars Pilou Asbæk, Michael Pitt, Juliette Binoche, Kaori Momoi, Rila Fukushima, Chin Han, Danusia Samal, Lasarus Ratuere, Yutaka Izumihara, Tuwanda Manyimo, and opens on March 31st, 2017.

BEN-HUR Review

There have been many a film versions of Lew Wallace's classic epic Ben-Hur, but of course the most notable is William Wyler's 1959 adaptation starring Charlton Heston that garnered eleven Academy Awards. It is a behemoth at three and a half hours and a product of a different time in Hollywood's history. A time when the studio system still reigned and historical/biblical epics were as hot as comic book movies are today. It was the success of Cecil B. DeMille's The Ten Commandments that also starred Heston that spurred MGM to invest $15 million (the most expensive film ever made at that point in time) in a new version of Ben-Hur. So, the question is: why re-make such a larger than life classic? Why even attempt to overcome the aura that surrounds a staple of popular culture as definitive as Wyler's Ben-Hur? While I questioned the reasoning for such a re-make it was easier to understand why an updated version of this story was necessary. The 1959 version is very much a product of its time and one that, through rose tinted glasses, can only be seen as this great epic that nothing and no one can touch or challenge. It has gorgeous practical sets and thousands upon thousands of extras shot on panorama that gives it the impression of being that much larger in its scope. It is also a movie someone of not only my generation, but those likely born in the decade prior to me and certainly those born after me, can't see without the already its status as one of the biggest, best movies ever made. Heston is this mythical type-figure of the golden age of Hollywood that can never be touched and so to even try and match such larger than life precedents would be an immediate way to automatically disqualify one's self from even being considered a valid piece of filmmaking. Still, with the 1959 version being as intimidating as it is an updated, shorter, and more current telling of the story might allow a way for modern audiences to find a way into the older version that they'd heard so much about though likely felt they'd already seen due simply to the lasting impression it's left. From the get-go director Timur Bekmambetov's (Wanted, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter) new version felt like it was going to be little more than a cheap knock-off (despite that $100 million production budget). Fortunately, while this 2016 take on Wallace's story is certainly the cliff notes version when compared to Wyler's it is surprisingly effective in accomplishing what it sets out to do and even has enough gumption to emphasize certain themes and actually develop characters rather than simply summarizing the previous versions with contemporary editing practices.